Laws and Regulations, United States Code
28 U.S.C. § 1331: Title 28, Part IV, Chapter 85, Section 1331
§1331. Federal question
 |
|
Select any part of the text below to annotate and link to court cases. (Remember to sign in to receive credit for your contributions.)
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
|
|
7/8/2024 |
California Northern District Court |
3:24-cv-04123-RFL |
Hutchinson v. Musk et al |
|
|
|
6/14/2024 |
California Northern District Court |
3:24-cv-03621-MMC |
Cavaliere v. Tesla, Inc. |
|
|
|
2/27/2024 |
California Northern District Court |
3:24-cv-01190-VC |
A.S. v. OpenAI et al |
|
|
|
2/16/2024 |
New York Southern District Court |
1:24-cv-01204 |
Bensky et al v. Indyke et al |
|
|
|
1/10/2024 |
Massachusetts District Court |
1:24-cv-10092-IT |
Kestenbaum et al v. President and Fellows of Harvard College |
|
|
|
9/6/2023 |
Maine District Court |
1:23-cv-00335-JAW |
CASTRO v. SECRETARY OF STATE, SHENNA BELLOWS et al |
|
|
|
9/5/2023 |
California Northern District Court |
3:23-cv-04557-VC |
T. et al v. OpenAI LP et al |
|
|
|
6/23/2023 |
California Northern District Court |
3:23-cv-03108-JD |
Pauly v. Becker |
|
|
|
5/30/2023 |
California Southern District Court |
3:23-cv-01010-CAB-AHG |
Toussaint v. Tesla |
|
|
|
5/12/2023 |
California Northern District Court |
3:23-cv-02321-TSH |
Bui-Ford et al v. Tesla, Inc. |
|
|
|
5/5/2023 |
California Northern District Court |
3:23-cv-02217-SI |
Anoke et al v. Twitter, Inc. et al |
|
|
|
4/26/2023 |
Florida Northern District Court |
4:23-cv-00163-MW-MAF |
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. v. DESANTIS et al |
|
|
|
3/24/2023 |
Massachusetts District Court |
1:23-cv-10647-DJC |
Oliveira v. Ellison-Lopes |
|
|
|
3/22/2023 |
New Mexico District Court |
1:23-cv-00242-SCY |
Johnson v. Tesla, Inc. |
|
|
|
3/20/2023 |
New York Southern District Court |
1:23-cv-02351-UA |
Craft v. Musk et al |
|
|
|
3/6/2023 |
California Northern District Court |
3:23-cv-01004-LB |
Ferguson v. Coinbase Inc. California |
|
|
|
1/12/2023 |
New York Southern District Court |
1:23-cv-00287-ER |
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Genesis Global Capital, LLC et al |
|
|
|
1/4/2023 |
New York Southern District Court |
1:23-cv-00038-JHR |
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau et al v. Credit Acceptance Corporation |
|
|
|
12/27/2022 |
New York Southern District Court |
1:22-cv-10904-JSR |
Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. |
|
|
|
12/12/2022 |
New York Northern District Court |
1:22-cv-01337-FJS-CFH |
VDARE Foundation, Inc. v. James |
|
|
|
11/29/2022 |
Texas Northern District Court |
4:22-cv-01072-P |
Johnson v. Brown et al |
|
|
|
11/25/2022 |
California Northern District Court |
5:22-cv-07472-BLF |
Nilsen v. Tesla, Inc. |
|
|
|
6/13/2022 |
Maryland District Court |
8:22-cv-01431-GJH |
Chloe v. El Amin et al |
|
|
|
6/3/2022 |
California Northern District Court |
3:22-cv-03253-AGT |
Minty v. Tesla et al |
|
|
|
5/31/2022 |
Maryland District Court |
8:22-cv-01296-TDC |
Gravatt v. Montgomery County, Maryland et al |
|
|
|
5/12/2022 |
California Northern District Court |
4:22-cv-02826-HSG |
Donovan et al v. Coinbase Global, Inc. et al |
|
|
|
5/6/2022 |
Illinois Northern District Court |
1:22-cv-02406 |
Bakhtiari v. Doe et al |
|
|
|
4/29/2022 |
Massachusetts District Court |
1:22-cv-10649-DJC |
McClain v. Cape Air |
|
|
|
4/15/2022 |
Massachusetts District Court |
1:22-cv-10573-DJC |
Romeo v. Town of Winthrop, Massachusetts et al |
|
|
|
3/7/2022 |
Maryland District Court |
1:22-cv-00548-BAH |
Courthouse News Service v. Harris et al |
|
|
|
2/22/2022 |
New York Southern District Court |
1:22-cv-01461-PKC |
Mata v. Avianca, Inc. |
|
|
|
2/2/2022 |
District Of Columbia District Court |
1:22-cv-00329-JMC |
SELTZER v. LIEDER et al |
|
|
|
12/20/2021 |
District Of Columbia District Court |
1:21-cv-03316 |
Jones v. Select Committee To Investigate The January 6 Attack On The United States Capitol et al |
|
|
|
12/10/2021 |
New Jersey District Court |
2:21-cv-20456-CCC-LDW |
POWELL v. CLOUD KITCHENS INC. et al |
|
|
|
12/8/2021 |
District Of Columbia District Court |
1:21-cv-03217-CJN |
MEADOWS v. PELOSI et al |
|
|
|
11/23/2021 |
California Northern District Court |
5:21-cv-09078 |
Apple Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited et al |
|
|
|
11/10/2021 |
Delaware District Court |
1:21-cv-01587-UNA |
Ryan Scott Holzbaur Trust et al v. Tesla, Inc. |
|
|
|
11/2/2021 |
District Of Columbia District Court |
1:21-cv-02887-EGS |
GIFFORDS v. NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION - POLITICAL VICTORY FUND et al |
|
|
|
10/28/2021 |
California Northern District Court |
3:21-cv-08378-JD |
Trump et al v. Twitter, Inc et al |
|
|
|
10/8/2021 |
New York Southern District Court |
1:21-cv-08353-PAE |
UNDERWOOD et al v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC. |
|
|
|
9/24/2021 |
California Northern District Court |
3:21-cv-07478-WHA |
Zubin v. Coinbase Global, Inc. et al |
|
|
|
6/11/2021 |
Maryland District Court |
8:21-cv-01475-TDC |
Romig v. Montgomery County et al |
|
|
|
4/12/2021 |
Florida Southern District Court |
1:21-cv-21409-MGC |
Herbert et al v. Wright et al |
|
|
|
3/17/2021 |
Washington Western District Court |
3:21-cv-05190-BHS |
Lewis v. CytoDyn Inc et al |
|
|
|
2/24/2021 |
California Eastern District Court |
2:21-cv-00348-JAM-DB |
Calica v. The Prudential Ins. Co. of America, et al., |
|
|
|
2/16/2021 |
District Of Columbia District Court |
1:21-cv-00400 |
THOMPSON v. TRUMP et al |
|
|
|
2/11/2021 |
Alabama Northern District Court |
7:21-cv-00220-LSC |
Doe #1 et al v. MG Freesites LTD et al |
|
|
|
1/12/2021 |
California Northern District Court |
5:21-cv-00277-VKD |
Estavillo v. Twitter, Inc. et al |
|
|
|
1/11/2021 |
Washington Western District Court |
2:21-cv-00031-BJR |
Parler LLC v. Amazon Web Services Inc |
|
|
|
12/16/2020 |
Texas Eastern District Court |
4:20-cv-00957-SDJ |
The State Of Texas, et al v. Google, LLC |
|
|
Source
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 930; Pub. L. 85–554, §1, July 25, 1958, 72 Stat. 415; Pub. L. 94–574, §2, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2721; Pub. L. 96–486, §2(a), Dec. 1, 1980, 94 Stat. 2369.)
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §41(1) (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §24, par. 1, 36 Stat. 1091; May 14, 1934, ch. 283, §1, 48 Stat. 775; Aug. 21, 1937, ch. 726, §1, 50 Stat. 738; Apr. 20, 1940, ch. 117, 54 Stat. 143).
Jurisdiction of federal questions arising under other sections of this chapter is not dependent upon the amount in controversy. (See annotations under former section 41 of title 28, U.S.C.A., and 35 C.J.S., p. 833 et seq., §§30–43. See, also, reviser's note under section 1332 of this title.)
Words “wherein the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs,†were added to conform to rulings of the Supreme Court. See construction of provision relating to jurisdictional amount requirement in cases involving a Federal question in United States v. Sayward, 16 S.Ct. 371, 160 U.S. 493, 40 L.Ed. 508; Fishback v. Western Union Tel. Co., 16 S.Ct. 506, 161 U.S. 96, 40 L.Ed. 630; and Halt v. Indiana Manufacturing Co., 1900, 20 S.Ct. 272, 176 U.S. 68, 44 L.Ed. 374.
Words “all civil actions†were substituted for “all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity†to conform with Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Words “or treaties†were substituted for “or treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority,†for purposes of brevity.
The remaining provisions of section 41(1) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., are incorporated in sections 1332, 1341, 1342, 1345, 1354, and 1359 of this title.
Changes were made in arrangement and phraseology.
Amendments
1980—Pub. L. 96–486 struck out “; amount in controversy; costs†in section catchline, struck out minimum amount in controversy requirement of $10,000 for original jurisdiction in federal question cases which necessitated striking the exception to such required minimum amount that authorized original jurisdiction in actions brought against the United States, any agency thereof, or any officer or employee thereof in an official capacity, struck out provision authorizing the district court except where express provision therefore was made in a federal statute to deny costs to a plaintiff and in fact impose such costs upon such plaintiff where plaintiff was adjudged to be entitled to recover less than the required amount in controversy, computed without regard to set-off or counterclaim and exclusive of interests and costs, and struck out existing subsection designations.
1976—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94–574 struck out $10,000 jurisdictional amount where action is brought against the United States, any agency thereof, or any officer or employee thereof in his official capacity.
1958—Pub. L. 85–554 included costs in section catchline, designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), substituted “$10,000†for “$3,000â€, and added subsec. (b).
Effective Date of 1980 Amendment; Applicability
Section 4 of Pub. L. 96–486 provided: “This Act [amending this section and section 2072 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade, and enacting provisions set out as a note under section 1 of this title] shall apply to any civil action pending on the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 1, 1980].â€
Effective Date of 1958 Amendment
Section 3 of Pub. L. 85–554 provided that: “This Act [amending this section and sections 1332 and 1345 of this title] shall apply only in the case of actions commenced after the date of the enactment of this Act [July 25, 1958].â€
 |
Sorry, this feature requires a PlainSite Pro or Pro Se subscription.
|
|
|