What Is 28 USC 1331? Federal Question Jurisdiction

28 U.S.C. 1331 is the statute that gives federal district courts federal question jurisdiction: authority to hear any civil case that “arises under” the U.S. Constitution, a federal statute, or a treaty.¹ There is no minimum amount in controversy. A case worth $500 can land in federal court if it genuinely turns on federal law, because Congress dropped the dollar threshold for these cases in 1980. Whether your case qualifies depends less on the subject matter alone and more on how the claim is pleaded and where the federal issue sits inside it.

The Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule

Not every lawsuit that touches federal law qualifies under 1331. The controlling test comes from Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley (1908): the federal issue must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s own complaint, not in an anticipated defense.²

In Mottley, a couple sued a railroad for reneging on lifetime free passes after Congress banned them. Their arguments involved federal law, but only in response to a defense the railroad hadn’t yet raised. The Supreme Court held their actual claim was a state-law contract dispute, so federal court was the wrong forum.²

The practical point: you don’t get into federal court just because federal law will probably come up. The federal question has to be part of your own claim from the start. Anticipating a federal defense does not count.

When a State-Law Claim Raises a Federal Question

A claim can be technically grounded in state law and still qualify if it depends on resolving an important federal issue. The Supreme Court’s four-part test comes from Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing (2005): a state-law claim qualifies when it necessarily raises a federal issue that is actually disputed, substantial, and can be heard in federal court without disturbing the balance Congress struck between federal and state courts.³

In Grable, ownership of a piece of property (ordinarily a state-law matter) turned on interpreting a federal tax-sale notice provision. The federal interest in uniform interpretation was strong enough to support jurisdiction. This route is narrow by design. A federal ingredient inside a state-law claim only works when the federal issue is genuinely important.

An earlier case, Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson (1986), adds a limit. When Congress has decided a federal statute should not create a private right to sue, a state-law claim that merely incorporates a violation of that statute as one element is not enough to open the federal courthouse doors.⁴ You generally can’t reach federal court by wrapping a violation of such a statute inside a state-law negligence claim.

Courts will also reject jurisdiction when the federal claim is fabricated. Under Bell v. Hood (1946), jurisdiction exists unless the federal claim is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.”⁵ Citing a federal statute just to manufacture jurisdiction will not survive a motion to dismiss.

Complete Preemption and Artful Pleading

The well-pleaded complaint rule gives plaintiffs real control over forum. A plaintiff can frame a complaint entirely in state-law terms and keep the case in state court even when federal law is in the background. Defendants have limited tools to override that choice. Complete preemption is one.

A handful of federal statutes are so comprehensive that they replace certain state-law claims outright. Courts have recognized complete preemption for claims falling under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, Section 502(a) of ERISA, and portions of the National Bank Act. When a state-law claim falls into one of these areas, a defendant can remove it to federal court, and the federal court keeps it because the underlying claim is really federal regardless of the label.

This is often called the artful pleading doctrine. A plaintiff cannot dodge federal court by carefully omitting the federal statute that actually governs the dispute. Courts look past the label to the substance.

Common Types of Federal Question Claims

Three main categories fill federal question dockets: constitutional claims, federal statutory claims, and treaty-based claims.

Constitutional Rights

Disputes over free speech, due process, equal protection, unreasonable searches, and other rights protected by the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment fit naturally in federal court. Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which challenged racial segregation under the Equal Protection Clause, is a well-known example.⁶

Many constitutional claims against state and local officials come through 42 U.S.C. 1983, which lets individuals sue anyone acting under government authority who violates their constitutional rights.⁷ Section 1983 claims are among the most frequently filed federal question cases, covering everything from excessive force by police to due process violations by public universities.

Federal Statutes

Claims under federal statutes that grant individuals a right to sue are the everyday stuff of federal question jurisdiction. Employment discrimination cases under Title VII, securities fraud actions under the Securities Exchange Act, and antitrust claims under the Sherman Act all reach federal court this way.

The key question is whether the statute creates a private right of action. Some statutes spell it out. The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act, for example, explicitly authorize private suits. Others, like the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act at issue in Merrell Dow, leave enforcement to federal agencies and do not allow private parties to sue directly.⁴ If the statute you’re relying on doesn’t create a private right of action, you may need a different path to federal court or you may be limited to state court entirely.

Treaties

Treaties are part of federal law under the Supremacy Clause, so disputes involving international agreements can qualify. Claims under the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction are a common example: when a parent seeks the return of a child taken across international borders, those cases typically proceed in federal court.

But not every treaty creates enforceable rights. In Medellín v. Texas (2008), the Supreme Court distinguished self-executing treaties, which take effect as domestic law once ratified, from non-self-executing treaties, which need Congress to pass implementing legislation before courts can enforce them.⁸ If a treaty falls in the second category and Congress hasn’t acted, a federal court has nothing to enforce.

Exclusive vs. Concurrent Federal Jurisdiction

A federal question does not always mean federal-court only. For most federal question cases, state courts have concurrent jurisdiction. You can file in either court, and the defendant may or may not seek to move it.

Congress has carved out exceptions where federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. Patent and copyright cases are the most significant. Under 28 U.S.C. 1338(a), no state court can hear a claim for relief arising under federal patent, plant variety protection, or copyright law.⁹ Trademark cases, by contrast, are not exclusive; the same statute grants federal courts jurisdiction, but state courts can hear them too. Other areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction include bankruptcy, federal antitrust claims, and securities class actions under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act.

File a patent or copyright case in state court and it will be dismissed. Choosing the wrong court in this narrow set of areas wastes months and real money.

State Claims That Come Along for the Ride

Real lawsuits rarely involve one legal theory. You might have a federal discrimination claim and a related state-law wrongful termination claim from the same firing. Under 28 U.S.C. 1367, if a federal court has jurisdiction over your federal claim, it can also hear state-law claims that arise from the same set of facts, what courts call a “common nucleus of operative fact.”¹⁰

That power has limits. A federal court can decline supplemental jurisdiction if the state-law claim raises a novel state-law question, if the state claims substantially overshadow the federal ones, or if the court has already dismissed all federal claims.¹⁰ That last situation is especially common. You file a federal claim plus a related state claim, the federal claim gets dismissed on summary judgment, and the court sends the state claim back to state court instead of deciding it. If your case leans on supplemental jurisdiction to hold the state-law pieces together, you need a backup plan in case the federal anchor claim doesn’t survive.

Where to File, What It Costs, and How to Challenge Jurisdiction

Federal question cases go to a U.S. district court, and you must file in the right district. The venue rules in 28 U.S.C. 1391 give three options: a district where any defendant resides (if all defendants live in the same state), a district where a substantial part of the events happened, or, as a fallback, any district where the court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant.¹¹

The filing fee for a new civil case in federal district court is $405: a $350 base fee plus a $55 administrative surcharge. Filing in forma pauperis can waive that cost, but you’ll need to demonstrate financial hardship to the court.

A defendant who believes the case doesn’t belong in federal court can challenge jurisdiction with a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).¹² Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised at any point in the case, even on appeal. If the court agrees, the case is dismissed without prejudice, and you can refile in a court that does have jurisdiction.

Removal From State Court

A plaintiff with a federal question claim can file in state court instead of federal court, unless the claim falls under exclusive federal jurisdiction. The defendant doesn’t have to accept that choice. Under 28 U.S.C. 1441, a defendant can remove the case to federal court if the plaintiff’s complaint shows a claim arising under federal law.¹³

The deadline is tight. A defendant must file a notice of removal within 30 days after receiving the complaint or summons, whichever comes first.¹⁴ If the original complaint didn’t reveal a federal question but a later filing does (an amended complaint or a court order, for example), a new 30-day window opens from the date the defendant receives that document. Missing the deadline generally keeps the case in state court, even if removal would have been proper.

Removal runs one direction only. Defendants remove; plaintiffs don’t. If you filed in state court and later wish you’d gone federal, removal isn’t available to you. And if the defendant removes improperly, you can ask the federal court to remand the case back to state court.

Federal Question vs. Diversity Jurisdiction

Federal courts have two main paths to hear civil cases: federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332. They solve different problems.

Federal question jurisdiction turns on what the case is about: it must involve the Constitution, a federal statute, or a treaty. Diversity jurisdiction turns on who the parties are: they must be citizens of different states, or one must be a foreign citizen.¹⁵
Diversity jurisdiction requires the disputed amount to exceed $75,000. Federal question jurisdiction has no minimum.¹⁵
Diversity requires complete diversity: no plaintiff can share state citizenship with any defendant. Federal question jurisdiction has no such party-alignment requirement.¹⁶
Federal question jurisdiction exists to keep federal law uniform. Diversity jurisdiction exists to protect out-of-state parties from potential hometown bias, and a diversity case typically applies state substantive law.

Both can exist in the same case. If you sue an out-of-state defendant for more than $75,000 over a federal civil rights violation, you have both. That redundancy matters if one basis is challenged, because losing on diversity doesn’t end your case when federal question jurisdiction independently holds up.

1
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1331 Federal Question
2
Justia U.S. Supreme Court. Louisville and Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908)
3
Cornell Law Institute. Grable and Sons Metal Products Inc. v. Darue Engineering and Manufacturing
4
Justia U.S. Supreme Court. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (1986)
5
Cornell Law School. Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678
6
Cornell Law School. Amendment XIV Section 1 – Brown v. Board of Education
7
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 1983 Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
8
Justia U.S. Supreme Court. Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008)
9
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S. Code 1338 – Patents, Plant Variety Protection, Copyrights and Trademarks
10
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S. Code 1367 – Supplemental Jurisdiction
11
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1391 Venue Generally
12
Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12 – Defenses and Objections
13
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1441 Removal of Civil Actions
14
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S. Code 1446 – Procedure for Removal of Civil Actions
15
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1332 Diversity of Citizenship Amount in Controversy Costs
16
Federal Judicial Center. Jurisdiction Diversity