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., 546 U.S. 500 (2006).
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006). “28 U. S. C. § 1331 . Title VII actions fit that description.”
Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Maryland, 535 U.S. 635 (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, 466 U.S. 602 (1984). “Respondents relied on 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.”
Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677 (2006). “The question presented is whether 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (authorizing jurisdiction over "civil actions arising under the .”
Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977). “§ 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 capacity.”
Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 (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., 969 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 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., 529 U.S. 1 (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.”
Atl. Richfield Co. v. Christian, 140 S. Ct. 1335 (2020). “” 28 U. S. C. §1331 . In the mine run of cases, “[a] suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.”
Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Env't Study Grp., Inc., 438 U.S. 59 (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 Pac. Corp., 318 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. 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. Union Pacific then filed a motion under Rule 59(e) requesting that…”
Hamdi Ex Rel. Hamdi v. Napolitano, 620 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 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
Gravois v. Travelers Indem. Co., 173 So. 2d 550 (La. Ct. App. 1965).
Johnson v. Biden (M.D. Tenn. 2022).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) — 35 cases
Apton v. Wilson, 506 F.2d 83 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
Citizens for Clean Air, Inc. v. Corps of Engineers, United States Army, 349 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1972).
Env't Def. Fund, Inc. v. Corps of Engineers of the U. S. ARMY, 325 F. Supp. 728 (E.D. Ark. 1971).
Opelika Nursing Home, Inc. v. Elliott L. Richardson, Sec'y of the United States Dep't of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 448 F.2d 658 (5th Cir. 1971).
Solomon Feldman, Jr. v. State Bd. of Law Examiners, 438 F.2d 699 (8th Cir. 1971).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1331(b) — 1 case
Massey v. City of Ruidoso Downs (D.N.M. 2022).
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.