327 U.S. 678 (1946)
Petitioners initiated this action in a federal district court against respondents, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, seeking recovery of damages exceeding $3,000.1 The complaint asserted that the court's jurisdiction rested on federal questions arising under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.2 Specifically, it alleged that petitioners suffered damages due to their imprisonment by respondents in violation of the right to liberty without due process of law, as well as searches of their premises and seizures of their possessions that violated protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.3
Respondents responded by filing motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action for which relief could be granted and for summary judgment.4 In support, they contended that the federal agents had acted within the scope of their authority as officers of the United States and that the searches and seizures were incidental to lawful arrests, rendering them valid.5 Both sides submitted affidavits: respondents in support of their motions and petitioners with counter-affidavits.6
Following a hearing on the motions, the district judge declined to rule on them.7 Instead, acting on his own initiative, the judge dismissed the suit for lack of federal jurisdiction.8 He determined that the action was not one arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 41(1).9
The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal on identical grounds.10 At the same time, the appellate court denied a motion by petitioners.11 Petitioners had requested that the District Court be directed to grant leave to amend the complaint so as to make it more apparent that the action was grounded directly on violations of rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.12 The Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari to address the jurisdictional question presented.13
Whether a complaint alleging that federal agents violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by imprisoning the plaintiffs without due process and conducting unreasonable searches and seizures states a claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States for purposes of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 41(1)?14
A federal court has jurisdiction over a suit if the complaint is drawn to seek recovery directly under the Constitution or laws of the United States. The court must assume jurisdiction to decide whether the allegations state a cause of action on which relief can be granted.15
Yes. The complaint in this case was drawn to seek recovery directly under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by alleging that the respondents violated those provisions through imprisonment without due process and unreasonable searches and seizures.16 The established facts show that petitioners initiated the action in federal district court against FBI agents for damages exceeding $3,000 on that basis.17
Respondents moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and for summary judgment, with affidavits exchanged by both sides.18 The district court on its own motion dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 41(1), and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed while denying leave to amend.19
Because the complaint seeks recovery squarely on the ground that respondents violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, the federal court must entertain the suit rather than dismiss for want of jurisdiction.20
The complaint states a claim arising under the Constitution for purposes of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 41(1).21
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Mr. Justice Burton
Chief Justice Stone, joined by Justice Burton, dissented on the ground that the district court is without jurisdiction as a federal court unless the complaint states a cause of action arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.22 Whether the complaint states such a cause of action is for the court, not the pleader, to decide.23 When a constitutional provision or federal statute affords a remedy which may in some circumstances be availed of by a plaintiff, the fact that his pleading does not bring him within that class as one entitled to the remedy goes to the sufficiency of the pleading and not to the jurisdiction.24
But where, as here, neither the constitutional provision nor any act of Congress affords a remedy to any person, the mere assertion by a plaintiff that he is entitled to such a remedy cannot be said to satisfy jurisdictional requirements.25 Hence the courts below rightly decided that the district court was without jurisdiction because no cause of action under the Constitution or laws of the United States was stated.26 The only effect of holding that jurisdiction is conferred by the pleader's unfounded assertion is to transfer to the federal court the trial of allegations of trespass to person and property, which is a cause of action arising wholly under state law.27
Whether a federal district court may dismiss a suit for want of jurisdiction on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted?28
The failure to state a proper cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not for a dismissal for want of jurisdiction.29
No. The district court dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction on the ground that the action was not one that arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States.30 However, the established facts indicate that the complaint was drawn to claim a right to recover under the Constitution by alleging violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments through specific acts of imprisonment, searches, and seizures.31
The failure to state a cause of action on which relief could be granted is a question of law to be decided after the court has assumed jurisdiction over the controversy.32 The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal on the same jurisdictional ground.33
A federal district court may not dismiss a suit for want of jurisdiction on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.34
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Mr. Justice Burton
Chief Justice Stone, joined by Justice Burton, maintained that where neither the constitutional provision nor any act of Congress affords a remedy to any person, the mere assertion by a plaintiff that he is entitled to such a remedy cannot be said to satisfy jurisdictional requirements.35 The only effect of holding, as the Court does, that jurisdiction is conferred by the pleader's unfounded assertion that he is one who can have a remedy for damages arising under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is to transfer to the federal court the trial of the allegations of trespass to person and property, which is a cause of action arising wholly under state law.36 For even though it be decided that petitioners have no right to damages under the Constitution, the district court will be required to pass upon the question whether the facts stated by petitioners give rise to a cause of action for trespass under state law.37