Federal Question Jurisdiction
What is the Federal Question Jurisdiction?
Under 28 U.S.C. section 1331, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, as determined by the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint.
Source: Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908)
Definition
Federal question jurisdiction, codified at 28 U.S.C. section 1331, grants federal district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. The scope of this jurisdiction is determined by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which requires that the federal issue appear on the face of the plaintiff's complaint as part of the plaintiff's cause of action, rather than being raised as a defense or counterclaim.
The well-pleaded complaint rule, established in Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley (1908), means that a case does not arise under federal law merely because a federal issue is anticipated in the defendant's answer or because federal law will be relevant at some later stage. The plaintiff's own claim must be created by or necessarily depend on a federal statute or constitutional provision. Claims created by federal law (such as claims under Title VII, section 1983, or federal securities statutes) clearly satisfy this requirement.
In addition, the Supreme Court in Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing (2005) recognized a narrow category of cases where a state-law claim may arise under federal law if the state claim necessarily raises a disputed and substantial federal issue that the federal court may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities. This four-part test provides federal question jurisdiction for certain state-law claims with embedded federal issues, but the category remains intentionally slim.
Key Elements
- 1The federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint
- 2The plaintiff's cause of action must be created by federal law, or a state-law claim must necessarily raise a substantial federal issue
- 3Anticipated federal defenses do not create federal question jurisdiction
- 4For embedded federal issues in state-law claims, the federal issue must be actually disputed and substantial
- 5Federal jurisdiction must not disturb the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities
Landmark Cases
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley
211 U.S. 149 (1908)
Established the well-pleaded complaint rule: federal question jurisdiction requires that the federal issue appear in the plaintiff's complaint, not merely as an anticipated defense.
Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing
545 U.S. 308 (2005)
Recognized a narrow category of state-law claims with embedded federal issues that can establish federal question jurisdiction when the federal issue is necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial, and capable of resolution without disturbing federal-state balance.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson
478 U.S. 804 (1986)
Held that a state-law negligence claim incorporating a federal standard did not arise under federal law, helping define the limits of embedded federal question jurisdiction.
Gunn v. Minton
568 U.S. 251 (2013)
Applied the Grable framework and held that a state-law malpractice claim raising patent law issues was not substantial enough for federal jurisdiction because its resolution would not affect the broader patent system.
Exam Tips
- Apply the well-pleaded complaint rule strictly: look only at the plaintiff's complaint, ignoring anticipated defenses and counterclaims.
- If the claim is created by federal law, the analysis is straightforward. The tricky cases involve state-law claims with embedded federal issues requiring the Grable four-part test.
- Remember that the complete preemption doctrine is an exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule that recharacterizes certain state-law claims as federal.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- Treating a federal defense as sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction, violating the well-pleaded complaint rule.
- Applying the Grable embedded federal issue test too broadly; the Supreme Court has emphasized it is a slim category.
- Confusing federal question jurisdiction under section 1331 with the broader scope of Article III arising under jurisdiction.
Memory Aid
Mottley rule: Only the Plaintiff's complaint counts. No peeking at defenses.