Also known as: rights of relief · right to relief
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
An asserted entitlement to a remedy or damages that a plaintiff claims arises from the same transaction or occurrence as other claims. The assertion supplies the basis for joining parties in a single action.
An asserted entitlement to a remedy or damages that a plaintiff claims arises from conduct governed by federal law. The assertion supplies the basis for invoking federal question jurisdiction when the claim rests directly on the Constitution or federal statutes.
An asserted entitlement to a remedy or damages that a plaintiff claims arises from the same transaction or occurrence as other claims. The assertion supplies the basis for joining parties in a single action.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
An asserted entitlement to a remedy or damages that a plaintiff claims arises from conduct governed by federal law. The assertion supplies the basis for invoking federal question jurisdiction when the claim rests directly on the Constitution or federal statutes.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Raymond Ramos and Renee Rogers were both detained during the same protest outside a federal building. Each filed a complaint alleging that officers violated their Fourth Amendment rights by seizing phones and holding them for questioning. Because their claims arose from the identical sequence of events, the court permitted them to proceed as co-plaintiffs asserting their right of relief jointly.
Rowan Russell attempted to relitigate a federal antitrust claim after an earlier judgment against a related party. The court determined that the prior action had already resolved the asserted right of relief arising from the same conduct. The doctrine of claim preclusion therefore barred the second suit.
Two consumers injured by the same defective appliance filed separate complaints against the manufacturer. Their claims arose from the identical manufacturing defect and distribution chain. The court allowed them to join as co-plaintiffs asserting their right of relief jointly under Rule 20.
When multiple plaintiffs assert any right of relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative arising from the same transaction or occurrence, Rule 20 permits them to join in one action. The shared factual nucleus satisfies the rule even if the precise legal theories differ slightly among the plaintiffs.
Supporting sources
Rina Rahman sued a federal agency after agents searched her office and seized servers. Her complaint alleged that the search violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and sought damages directly under the Constitution. The court recognized that her asserted right of relief under federal law supported federal question jurisdiction even though no statute expressly created a damages action.
Ronald Reed and other voters sued state officials claiming that legislative districts violated the Equal Protection Clause. Their complaint asserted a right of relief under the Fourteenth Amendment for the denial of equal voting weight. The court treated the claim as presenting a justiciable federal question suitable for judicial resolution.
Rajesh Rao filed suit against city police officers who conducted a warrantless search of his home. The complaint alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment and sought damages under federal law. The court held that the asserted right of relief supported federal jurisdiction even though the officers acted under color of state law.
Yes. A complaint that alleges a right of relief directly under the Constitution or federal law presents a case arising under federal law for jurisdictional purposes. The absence of an express remedial provision affects the merits, not the existence of jurisdiction.
Supporting sources
A claim is substantial when the complaint alleges concrete facts that plausibly implicate federal constitutional or statutory protections. Only when the asserted right of relief is so clearly foreclosed by precedent that it presents no genuine federal controversy may a court dismiss for lack of jurisdiction rather than on the merits.
Supporting sources
…present a justiciable constitutional cause of action upon which appellants are entitled to a trial and a decision. The right to relief under the Equal Protection Clause is not foreclosed by the Court’s prior decisions. The judgment of the District Court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings…