28 U.S.C. § 1331
Federal question
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56,323
cases (19,091 in the last 5 years), 1940–2026 · leading case: Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. (2006)
“28 U. S. C. § 1331 . Title VII actions fit that description.”
Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland (2002)
“§ 252 (e)(6) and 28 U. S. C. § 1331 as the basis for jurisdiction, and naming as defendants the Commission, its individual members in their official capacities, WorldCom, and other competing LECs.”
Heckler v. Ringer (1984)
“Respondents relied on 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.”
Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh (2006)
“The question presented is whether 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (authorizing jurisdiction over "civil actions arising under the .”
Califano v. Sanders (1977)
“2721, which amends 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (a) to eliminate the requirement of a specified amount in controversy as a prerequisite to the maintenance of "any [§ 1331] action brought against the United States, any agency thereof, or any officer or employee thereof in his official…”
Weinberger v. Salfi (1975)
“That court concluded that it had jurisdiction of the action by virtue of 28 U. S. C. § 1331 , and eventually certified the case as a class action.”
City of Oakland v. Bp P.L.C. (2020)
“The district court denied the cities’ motion to remand the cases to state court, holding that it had federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the cities’ claim was “necessarily governed by federal common law.”
Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc. (2000)
“The association invoked the court's federal-question jurisdiction, 28 U. S. C. § 1331 . The District Court dismissed the suit on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction.”
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian (2020)
“…arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. §1331 . In the mine run of cases, “[a] suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.” American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., <a href="/opinion/98740/”
Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. (1978)
“Hence, if there exists jurisdiction to hear appellees' claims at all, it must be derived from 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (a) (1976 ed.), the general federal-question statute, rather than from § 1337the jurisdictional base pleaded.”
Nicodemus v. Union Pacific Corp. (2003)
“In that same order, the district court, sua sponte, dismissed plaintiffs’ causes of action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction under both 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1332. Id.”
Hamdi Ex Rel. Hamdi v. Napolitano (2010)
“Neither the parties nor the district court discussed whether Hamdi could assert subject-matter jurisdiction under general federal-question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , and whether the district court, by grounding its decision in 8 U.”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1331(1) — 2 cases
Johnson v. Biden (2022)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) — 35 cases
Apton v. Wilson (1974)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1331(b) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.