Also known as: substantial federal questions · federal question jurisdiction
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A federal claim or issue that is not wholly insubstantial, frivolous, or foreclosed by precedent. The claim supports federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff alleges a right to relief directly under the Constitution or federal law.
Samuel Soto sued federal inspectors after they entered his property without a warrant and seized equipment. He sought damages directly under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The complaint alleged a right to relief under the Constitution even without an express statutory remedy. The court found the claim presented a substantial federal question sufficient for jurisdiction.
Solomon Silver sued a neighbor in state court for trespass under state law. The defendant answered by claiming a federal permit authorized the conduct. The plaintiff moved to remand after removal. The court held that a federal defense raised only in the answer cannot create a substantial federal question for jurisdiction.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Scott Summers filed a state contract action alleging breach of an employment agreement. The complaint predicted the defendant would invoke federal student-aid regulations as a defense and asked the court to declare those regulations inapplicable. The defendant removed on federal-question grounds. The court held that anticipating a federal defense does not present a substantial federal question on the face of the complaint.
Sierra Santos and her partner sought a marriage license in a state that limited marriage to opposite-sex couples. They sued in federal court claiming a constitutional right to marry. The state moved to dismiss, citing an earlier summary decision that had rejected a similar claim. The court treated the earlier decision as lacking a substantial federal question and proceeded to decide the merits.
Simon Stern, a voter, sued state officials alleging that legislative districts diluted his vote in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The defendants argued the claim presented only a political question. The court held that the complaint raised a substantial federal question because it alleged a concrete violation of a constitutional right.
Samantha Stone sued a union under federal labor law for interference with her employment rights. She added a state-law claim for emotional distress arising from the same events. The court exercised jurisdiction over the state claim because the federal claim presented a substantial federal question and the claims shared a common nucleus of operative fact.
A constitutional claim presents a substantial federal question when the plaintiff alleges a right to relief directly under the Constitution and the claim is not wholly insubstantial or frivolous. Jurisdiction exists even if the court later decides no implied cause of action should be recognized.
Supporting sources
No. The well-pleaded complaint rule requires the federal issue to appear on the face of the plaintiff's own claim. A federal defense or counterclaim, no matter how central, cannot supply the substantial federal question needed for jurisdiction.
Supporting sources
No. Pleading a state-law claim and then describing the defendant's likely federal defense does not transform the action into one arising under federal law. Jurisdiction turns on the plaintiff's cause of action, not on anticipated defenses.
Supporting sources
…810, a one-line summary decision issued in 1972, holding that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage did not present a substantial federal question. But other, more instructive precedents have expressed broader principles. See, e.g., Lawrence , supra, at 574. In assessing whether the force and rationale of its cases apply to same-sex…