A federal question is a legal claim that arises under the U.S. Constitution, a federal statute, or a treaty of the United States. When a lawsuit is built on one of those sources of law, federal district courts have authority to hear it under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which gives them “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1331 – Federal Question There is no minimum dollar amount. Any civil claim rooted in federal law can be brought in federal court, no matter how small the stakes.
The constitutional basis sits in Article III, which extends the federal judicial power to “all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, [and] the laws of the United States.”2Legal Information Institute. Federal Question Jurisdiction Congress once required $10,000 in controversy for a federal question case, but eliminated that threshold in 1980.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1331 – Federal Question Diversity jurisdiction still carries a $75,000 threshold; federal question jurisdiction does not.
The Three Sources That Create a Federal Question
Only three categories of law can serve as the basis for a federal question:
- The U.S. Constitution. Claims that a government actor violated your constitutional rights — First Amendment free speech, Fourteenth Amendment due process, and the like — are classic federal questions.3Federal Judicial Center. Jurisdiction – Federal Question
- Federal statutes. Laws passed by Congress, such as the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or federal securities laws, create federal questions when you allege a violation.
- Treaties. International treaties ratified by the United States can give rise to federal court jurisdiction.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1331 – Federal Question
State constitutions, state statutes, and local ordinances do not count. A dispute over a state employment contract or a local zoning rule is not a federal question, however important or expensive it might be. The legal right you are asserting has to come from one of the three federal sources above.
The Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule
A lawsuit does not become a federal question just because federal law is somewhere in the picture. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, the federal issue has to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s own complaint, the document that starts the case.3Federal Judicial Center. Jurisdiction – Federal Question Predicting that the other side will raise a federal defense is not enough.
The Supreme Court set this out in Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley (1908). The plaintiffs held free railroad passes and expected the railroad to argue that a new federal law barred honoring them. The Court held that an anticipated federal defense could not create jurisdiction; the plaintiff’s own claim had to be grounded in federal law.3Federal Judicial Center. Jurisdiction – Federal Question
The same rule applies when a plaintiff asks for a declaratory judgment, a ruling that declares the parties’ rights without ordering damages. In Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. (1950), the Supreme Court held that the Declaratory Judgment Act expanded the remedies available in federal court but did not expand federal jurisdiction itself.4Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. If the underlying dispute is really a state-law claim, you cannot manufacture a federal question by asking for declaratory relief against an expected federal defense.
When a State-Law Claim Can Still Qualify
There is a narrow exception. A case pleaded under state law can qualify as a federal question when the state claim has a federal issue built into it. The Supreme Court laid out the test in Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing (2005): the state-law claim must “necessarily raise[] a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.”5Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Grable and Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering and Mfg.
All four elements have to be met:
- Necessity. The state-law claim cannot be resolved without answering a federal-law question.
- Actual dispute. The federal issue is genuinely contested, not hypothetical.
- Substantiality. The federal issue matters enough that federal courts have a real interest in deciding it.
- Non-disruptiveness. Hearing the case in federal court would not upset the balance Congress set between state and federal courts.
A separate doctrine, complete preemption, produces a similar result through different reasoning. A few federal statutes, including the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor Management Relations Act, so thoroughly occupy their field that any state-law claim in that field is treated as a federal claim. A case pleaded under state law can then be removed to federal court because the federal statute supplies the exclusive legal framework.
Standing: You Still Need a Personal Stake
Having a federal question is necessary but not sufficient. You also need standing, meaning a real, personal stake in the outcome. The Supreme Court set out a three-part test in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife:6Congress.gov. Standing Requirement – Overview
- Injury in fact. You suffered an actual or imminent harm that is concrete and personal, not abstract or hypothetical.
- Causation. Your injury can be fairly traced to the defendant’s conduct.
- Redressability. A favorable court decision would likely fix or compensate for your injury.
Without all three, a federal court will dismiss the case for lack of standing, even when the underlying claim raises an obvious federal question. A generalized grievance shared equally by everyone typically does not satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement.
Private Right of Action
Even a clear violation of federal law does not always let you sue. Some federal statutes rely entirely on enforcement by government agencies and do not allow individuals to file suit. Without what courts call a private right of action, the case will be dismissed.
A statute can create that right expressly, by saying so in its text. When the statute is silent, courts look at whether Congress meant to allow private suits by implication. The modern standard comes from Alexander v. Sandoval (2001): courts examine the statute’s text and structure to determine whether Congress intended to create both a private right and a private remedy. General language about protecting a class of people is not enough on its own.
Where Federal Question Cases Get Filed
Some federal questions have to be heard in federal court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1338, patent cases, copyright cases, and plant variety protection cases fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S. Code 1338 – Patents, Plant Variety Protection, Copyrights and Trademarks Bankruptcy is also exclusively federal. File one of these in state court and it will be dismissed.
Most other federal questions carry concurrent jurisdiction, meaning either a state court or a federal court can hear them. When a plaintiff files a concurrent-jurisdiction case in state court, the defendant generally has the right to move it to federal court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States.”8Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S. Code 1441 – Removal of Civil Actions The notice of removal has to be filed within 30 days of receiving the complaint.9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1446 – Procedure for Removal of Civil Actions
If a case is removed but the complaint does not actually present a federal question, the plaintiff can ask the federal court to send it back. A motion to remand based on a procedural defect must be filed within 30 days after removal. If the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction entirely, the case has to be sent back at any point before final judgment, with no deadline, and the court can order the removing party to pay the plaintiff’s costs and attorney fees.10Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S. Code 1447 – Procedure After Removal Generally