Also known as: federal-question jurisdiction · federal question · § 1331 jurisdiction
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A grant of subject-matter jurisdiction authorizing federal district courts to hear civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. The well-pleaded complaint rule requires that the plaintiff's cause of action be created by federal law or necessarily depend on resolution of a substantial federal issue. A federal defense or counterclaim cannot confer this jurisdiction.
Felix Franco alleges that federal agents violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights during a search of his business premises. He files suit in federal district court seeking damages directly under the Constitution. The court exercises federal question jurisdiction because the complaint asserts a right to relief created by federal constitutional provisions even without an express statutory remedy.
Finn Fletcher sues his former employer in state court for breach of an employment contract. The employer removes to federal court citing a federal statute that will serve as a defense. The federal court remands the case because the complaint pleads only a state-law claim and the federal issue appears solely as an anticipated defense.
Fabian Flynn asserts a federal copyright infringement claim against a competitor that copied his software. He joins a state-law unfair competition claim arising from the same copying. The federal court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim because it shares a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claim.
Felicia Fuentes files a state-court contract action alleging breach of a licensing agreement. The complaint mentions a federal patent statute only to preempt the defendant's expected invalidity defense. The federal court lacks jurisdiction because the complaint asserts no federal cause of action and references federal law solely in anticipation of a defense.
Farah Fox brings a federal securities claim and a related state fraud claim arising from the same investment transaction. The federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction because both claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact that a plaintiff would ordinarily try in one proceeding.
Francesca Fowler asserts a federal claim against Frontier Capital and joins additional state-law claims against the same defendant. Once the federal claim supplies original jurisdiction, the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims even if diversity is incomplete.
In 1991, about 10,000 Exxon dealers filed a class-action suit against the Exxon Corporation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. They alleged an intentional and systematic scheme by which they were overcharged for fuel purchased from Exxon. The plaintiffs invoked the District Court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Each dealer's claim was for slightly less than the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum. After a unanimous jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, the District Court certified the case for interlocutory review on the question of supplemental jurisdiction over class members who did not meet the jurisdictional minimum. In a separate action, a 9-year-old girl sued Star-Kist in a diversity action in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. She sought damages for unusually severe injuries she received when she sliced her finger on a tuna can. Her family joined in the suit seeking damages for emotional distress and medical expenses. The District Court granted summary judgment to Star-Kist, finding that none of the plaintiffs met the minimum amount-in-controversy requirement. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the District Court's extension of supplemental jurisdiction to the class members who did not meet the amount requirement. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that the injured girl, but not her family members, had made allegations of damages in the requisite amount. It further held that section 1367 authorizes supplemental jurisdiction only when the district court has original jurisdiction over the action. In a diversity case, original jurisdiction is lacking if one plaintiff fails to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeals. The cases were consolidated before the Supreme Court.
View caseThe rule requires that federal question jurisdiction be determined solely from the plaintiff's properly pleaded cause of action. A federal defense or counterclaim cannot create jurisdiction.
Supporting sources
No. A complaint that asserts only a state-law claim and mentions federal law solely to preempt an expected defense does not arise under federal law.
Supporting sources
A federal court may hear a state claim when it shares a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim such that the plaintiff would ordinarily try both in one proceeding.
Supporting sources
Yes. A case arises under federal law when the plaintiff alleges a right to relief directly under the Constitution or federal statutes even without an express remedial provision.
Supporting sources
…West Bros. Brick Co. v. Alexandria , 169 Va. 271, 282-283, 192 S. E. 881, 885-886, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 302 U. S. 658 (1937). : There are some 53 designated landmarks and 5 historic districts or scenic landmarks in Manhattan between 14th and 59th Streets. See Landmarks Preservation…