Chapter 4- Federal Question Jurisdiction

I. Introduction -28 U.S.C. 1331 grants jurisdiction to the federal district courts over all cases arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. II. The Constitutional Scope of Federal Question Jurisdiction -Chief Justice Marshalls expansive interpretation of the scope of federal question:
We think, then, that when a question to which the judicial power of the Union is extended by the constitution, forms an inngredient of the original cause, it is in the power of Congress to give the (lower federal courts) jurisdiction of that cause, although other questions of fact or of law may be involved in it.

-Whether it is introduced by the plaintiffs claims or by a defense asserted in the defendants answer, Article III, Section 2 grants federal question jurisdiction over the case. -Virtually any case in which an issue of federal law is asserted by one of the original parties thus satisfies the constitutional definition of federal question jurisdiction. III. The Statutory Scope of Federal Question Jurisdiction: The Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule -Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule- the case arises under federal law, as the phrase is used in 1331, if the federal issue appear on the face of the well-pleaded complaint, that is, if a proper complaint, limited to the allegations necessary to state a proper claim for relief, relies on federal law. -The Mottley Rule allows the court to determine its jurisdiction without demanding an immediate answer to the complaint or relying on the plaintiff's representations about likely defenses. -Mottley Rule allows efficient and early decision about the federal courts jurisdiction. -If a court, at anytime determines that it lacks SMJ, the court must dismiss the action. IV. Applying Mottley: Justice Holmes Creation Test -State courts have concurrent jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law and usually can hear cases within the federal SMJ. -In Holmes Group v. Vornado Air, the Supreme Court held that federal question jurisdiction may not be based on a counterclaim. -Allowing responsive pleadings by the defendant to establish arising under jurisdiction would undermine the clarity and ease of administration of the well-pleaded complaint doctrine. -If a plaintiff sues in state court on a state law claim and the defendant asserts a counterclaim that arises under federal law, the case cannot be removed to federal court. -Cases may be removed to federal court if they could have been brought there originally. - 28 U.S.C. 1338(a) holds that any civil action arising under federal patent laws must be brought in federal court. -Declaratory Judgement allows a party, before an alleged violation of rights has actually taken place, to bring suit and ask the court to declare the rights of the parties. (28 U.S.C. 2201-2202)

-In assessing federal question jurisdiction over an action for a declaratory judgment, the court must ask whether the case would arise under federal law if brought by the party who would ordinarily be the plaintiff seeking a coercive judgment. -Inverting the parties does not make the case arise under federal law. V. Beyond the Holmes test: State Law Claims Involving Substantial Question of Federal Law -Holmes Test: a suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action -If a case satisfies the Holmes test, it will almost certainly be held to arise under federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1331. -Where a plaintiff seeks relief under a federal statute or regulation, the federal court will have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331.
Under our interpretations, Congress has given the lower federal courts jurisdiction to hear, originally or by removal from a state court, only those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

-A plaintiff may sometimes invoke federal question jurisdiction even though the source of her right to relief is a state law cause of action. -Resolution of plaintiffs state law claim necessarily depends on the decision of an issue of federal law. -Smith v. Kansas City: the plaintiff sues under state law, but proposes to prove the state claim by showing that the defendant had violated federal law. -If federal law creates the plaintiffs right to sue, the case arises under federal law. -If the plaintiff asserts a substantial claim that provides a basis for federal court jurisdiction, the federal court will have supplemental jurisdiction over other claims arising from the same fats. - In supplemental jurisdiction all claims, state and federal are thought as a single dispute, as long as one claim gives the federal court a basis for jurisdiction, the court may hear all claims that arise from that dispute. -In Declaratory judgment actions there is federal question jurisdiction if the case would have arisen under federal law if it had been brought as an ordinary action by the party seeking coercive relief. VI. Article III and Supreme Court Jurisdiction: Mottley, Round II -Under Article III, a case is within the federal question jurisdiction as long as it involves a federal issue, whether that issue is raised by the plaintiff or defendant. -Congress granted the right for the Supreme Court to review cases that turn on federal issues, whether they arise from the original claim or as a defense. VII. Federal Question Jurisdiction: Summary of Basic Principles -The constitutional grant of federal question jurisdiction in Article III, Section 2 was broadly contrued in Osborn v. Bank of United States. So long as a case involves a non-frivolous issue of federal law, whether raised in the original complaint or in a defendants answer, a federal court may be authorized to hear it. -The power of Congress to create lower federal courts includes the power to define their jurisdiction by statue. Article III, Section 2 sets the outer limit, but within the scope of Article III, Section 2, Congress may pick and choose, granting federal trial courts less than the full jurisdiction authorized by the Constitution. Thus, Congress may, and has,

authorized the federal district courts to hear some cases that arise under federal law, but not others. -The grant of federal question jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. 1331 is considerably more limited than the constitutional scope of federal question jurisdiction under Osborn. Under Mottleys well-pleaded complaint rule, the court looks only to the plaintiffs claim in determining whether a case arises under federal law. -The vast majority of cases, the Holmes test works to determine whether a case satisfies the Mottley requirement. If federal law creates the cause of action that the plaintiff seeks to enforce, the federal court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331. If the plaintiff seeks recovery on a state law cause of action, it usually does not. -Occasionally, a case will be held to arise under federal law even though the plaintiff seeks recovery on a state law claim. In such cases, such as Grable v. Darue, the Supreme Court has recognized that sometimes a plaintiff will have to establish an important proposition of federal law in order to prove a state law claim. Depending on the importance of the federal issue, whether federal jurisdiction would disrupt the allocation of business between state and federal courts, and other prudential factors, a court may find that the federal district court has jurisdiction over the case under 28 U.S.C. 1331. -The jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court is established in Article III, Section 2 and also regulated by federal statute. The statutes regulating the Courts appellate jurisdiction are much broader than 28 U.S.C. 1331. Many state court cases that involve issues of federal law my be reviewed by the Supreme Court, even though the federal issue is raised as a defense or in some other posture. Even though such cases do not satisfy the Mottley rule, they are within the grant of appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court.