What You'll Learn

  • Section 1331
  • Federal law creates the cause of action
  • The well-pleaded complaint rule
  • Defenses and counterclaims
  • State and federal court overlap
  • Exam method and examples

Educational information only; not legal advice. This article is a general study aid and should be checked against current authority and course materials.

Federal law can appear almost anywhere in a lawsuit: in the plaintiff's claim, in an anticipated defense, in a counterclaim, or in a disputed background issue. Federal-question jurisdiction does not treat those appearances equally. The central inquiry is whether federal law is part of the plaintiff's own properly pleaded basis for relief.

1. Section 1331

28 U.S.C. § 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions "arising under" the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Unlike ordinary diversity jurisdiction, § 1331 does not require complete diversity or a minimum amount in controversy.

Key Takeaway

The federal issue generally must appear in the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint as part of the claim for relief. Jurisdiction is assessed from the claim the plaintiff is entitled to plead, not from anticipated responses.

2. When Federal Law Creates the Cause of Action

The most straightforward case arises when federal law creates the plaintiff's cause of action. A claim under a federal civil-rights statute, federal employment statute, or federal constitutional cause of action ordinarily falls within § 1331. The classic Holmes formulation is that a suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action. The test is highly useful, but it is not exhaustive because a narrow category of state-law claims with embedded federal issues can also qualify.

Federal claim

Federal statute creates the right and remedy. Usually within § 1331.

Federal defense

Defendant plans to rely on federal law. Ordinarily not enough.

Embedded issue

State claim necessarily raises a disputed, substantial federal issue. Apply the Grable test.

3. Mottley and the Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule

In Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley, the plaintiffs brought a contract claim and expected the railroad to defend under a federal statute. They also planned to argue that the statute was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the anticipated federal defense and reply did not create federal-question jurisdiction. The rule promotes administrable jurisdictional screening. The court looks at the plaintiff's properly pleaded claim rather than speculating about defenses that may never arise.

Pleading fact Ordinary § 1331 result Why

Plaintiff sues under a federal wage statute. Yes. Federal law creates the cause of action.

Plaintiff sues for state-law breach and predicts a federal preemption defense. No. The federal issue appears only in a defense.

Defendant asserts a federal counterclaim. No original § 1331 jurisdiction over the complaint. The well-pleaded complaint rule focuses on the plaintiff's claim.

State quiet-title claim requires deciding a disputed federal notice issue. Possibly. Apply the embedded federal issue test.

4. Defenses, Preemption, and Counterclaims

An ordinary federal defense does not create original federal-question jurisdiction. The same is true of a federal counterclaim appearing in the defendant's answer. The plaintiff is master of the complaint and may often rely solely on state law, subject to exceptional doctrines and specialized removal statutes beyond the ordinary § 1331 framework.

Common Mistake

Do not write that a case "involves federal law" and stop. Identify where federal law appears. If it appears only in the defendant's anticipated defense or counterclaim, ordinary § 1331 jurisdiction is missing.

5. State Courts Can Hear Many Federal Claims

Federal-question jurisdiction does not necessarily exclude state courts. State courts generally have concurrent jurisdiction over federal claims unless Congress has made federal jurisdiction exclusive. That means a plaintiff with a federal claim may sometimes choose state court, while the defendant may consider removal if the statutory requirements are satisfied.

6. Worked Hypothetical

Key Takeaway

A tenant sues a landlord in state court for breach of lease. The tenant alleges that the landlord will defend by arguing that a federal housing regulation permits the challenged fee. The complaint seeks relief only under state contract law. The predicted federal defense does not appear as part of the tenant's own cause of action. Under Mottley, it does not create ordinary federal-question jurisdiction. The analysis could change only if the state claim itself necessarily requires resolution of a qualifying embedded federal issue.

7. Exam Checklist

  1. Identify the plaintiff's cause of action. 2. Ask whether federal law creates that cause of action. 3. Ignore anticipated defenses and replies for ordinary § 1331 analysis. 4. Do not use a defendant's counterclaim to create original jurisdiction over the complaint. 5. If the claim is state-created, move to the four-part Grable test. 6. Remember that § 1331 has no amount-in-controversy requirement.

Key Takeaway

Under § 1331 and the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal-question jurisdiction must appear from the plaintiff's properly pleaded claim. A federal defense or counterclaim ordinarily does not count. Jurisdiction is straightforward when federal law creates the cause of action; a state-created claim requires the separate embedded-issue analysis.

Primary Authorities

  • 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

  • Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908).

  • American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257 (1916).

  • Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826 (2002).

Exam-ready conclusion

Federal-question jurisdiction is about the legal source of the plaintiff's claim, not the number of federal references in the dispute. Start with the complaint, apply Mottley, and use Grable only when a state-law claim necessarily raises a federal issue.