What Is Federal Question Jurisdiction?

The U.S. Constitution grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear cases in specific circumstances. But just what those circumstances mean has been developed over time by the courts and Congress.

One of the ways in which the federal courts gain jurisdiction is through diversity jurisdiction. The other is through federal question jurisdiction, which means that the case must involve an issue arising under federal law.

Federal question jurisdiction provides the basis for many of the most high-profile Supreme Court cases. If a case involves an alleged infringement of constitutional rights by the federal government, the courts likely exercised federal question jurisdiction to consider it.

This article describes federal question jurisdiction and covers the following topics:

• Article III of the Constitution and its grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts

• Federal question jurisdiction and its historical background

• Significant Supreme Court cases that clarify the scope of federal question jurisdiction

Article III

Article III of the Constitution vests the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court and lower federal courts that Congress may establish.

Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states the judiciary’s powers and limits. It states the following:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

Federal Question Jurisdiction Explained

“Jurisdiction” refers to a court’s ability to adjudicate a legal dispute. More specifically, it refers to a court’s ability to analyze and apply the law to a dispute and render a decision.

There are several types of jurisdiction with regard to civil procedure and getting your case into federal court. The most common are as follows:

• Federal question jurisdiction

• Diversity jurisdiction

• Supplemental jurisdiction

Courts must also have personal and subject matter jurisdiction over a dispute.

Federal question jurisdiction allows federal courts to exercise jurisdiction over all cases “arising under this Constitution” and “the Laws of the United States.” If a case involves an alleged violation of the Constitution or a federal law, the federal courts likely have jurisdiction to decide it.

Whether a party can invoke federal question jurisdiction depends on whether the court must construe either the Constitution or federal law in order to decide the dispute. If the court does not have to interpret the Constitution or a federal law, the case does not invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Today, plaintiffs must include a federal claim in their “well-written complaint” to satisfy the federal question statute.

As the Constitution Annotated notes, “[a] determination of whether there is federal question jurisdiction is made on the basis of the plaintiff's pleadings and not upon the response or the facts as they may develop.”

Historical Background of Federal Question Jurisdiction

During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the Framers debated the jurisdiction of the federal court system. Specifically, they had to determine the extent of the constitutional grant of jurisdiction that the Constitution would enumerate in Article III.

The Framers were concerned that allowing state courts to apply and interpret federal law would lead to biased or inconsistent results. Therefore, Article III gave the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over state court cases involving federal laws, treaties, and the Constitution.

Alexander Hamilton wrote about federal question jurisdiction in The Federalist No. 80. There, he wrote that the courts had such jurisdiction because “there ought always to be a constitutional method of giving efficacy to constitutional provisions.”

Congress then enacted the Judiciary Act of 1789, which created the lower federal court system. However, it did not grant the lower federal district courts federal question jurisdiction at that time. Instead, litigants could file lawsuits involving federal laws or the Constitution in state courts. The U.S. Supreme Court had appellate jurisdiction over such cases.

In the 1790s, Congress passed several more Acts that granted federal courts jurisdiction over specific federal claims, such as patent law.

After the Civil War, Congress passed additional legislation that gave federal courts original jurisdiction over civil rights cases (28 U.S.C. § 1343). Today, litigants often rely on § 1343 to file federal causes of action challenging violations of their civil rights by state and local governments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

In 1875, Congress passed legislation that gave federal question jurisdiction to the lower federal courts. The original federal question statute included an amount in controversy. This meant the case had to exceed a certain dollar amount ($500 at that time) for the court to exercise jurisdiction over it. Congress amended the jurisdictional statute in 1976 and 1980 to eliminate the amount in controversy requirement.

Today, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 grants federal question jurisdiction over civil actions to the federal court. It states the following:

"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

Supreme Court Federal Question Cases

This section describes several significant Supreme Court cases that describe the development of federal question jurisdiction. They begin with cases in the 1800s, when Chief Justice John Marshall construed federal question jurisdiction broadly. Later cases generally narrowed its grant of jurisdiction.

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816)

In Martin, the Supreme Court faced a challenge to its own appellate jurisdiction.

The case involved a land dispute in Virginia dating back to the American Revolution. Virginia passed a law during the Revolutionary War allowing it to seize land from people who stayed loyal to the British Crown (“Loyalists”).

In 1781, Denny Martin inherited land from his late uncle, Thomas Lord Fairfax, a Loyalist. Virginia’s legislature subsequently voided the inheritance and returned the land to the state. Virginia then granted some of the land to a man named David Hunter. However, a federal treaty in effect at the time legally dictated that Lord Fairfax was entitled to the property.

Martin filed a lawsuit, which eventually reached the Virginia Supreme Court, the state’s highest court. The court allowed the state to seize and grant the land despite the treaty.

Martin appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed and remanded the decision. It held that the federal treaty superseded Virginia’s state law due to Article IV’s supremacy clause.

On appeal, however, the Virginia Court of Appeals chose not to follow the Supreme Court’s ruling. The Virginia Court of Appeals argued that Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted the Supreme Court appellate review of state court decisions, was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court took the case up for review again. This time, it ruled that Section 25 was constitutional. The Court held that the supremacy clause and Article III’s grant of jurisdiction allowed it to review state court decisions involving both federal laws and the Constitution. It also held that the supremacy clause allows its interpretation of a federal law to supersede a state court’s interpretation.

The case stands for the idea that federal question jurisdiction does not just apply to suits originally filed in federal court. Instead, it allows the Supreme Court to review decisions that exhaust a state’s appellate procedure.

Cohens v. Virginia (1821)

In Cohens, the Court clarified what it means for a case to “arise under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. It ruled that “whenever [the court’s] correct decision depends on the construction of either,” the case arises under the Constitution or federal laws. This includes cases that “grow out of the legislation of Congress, whether they constitute the right or privilege, or claim or protection, or defense of the party, in whole or in part, by whom they are asserted.”

In other words, if any party asserts a claim or defense that requires a court to consider a federal law or the U.S. Constitution, the court can exercise federal question jurisdiction to decide the case.

Osborn v. Bank of the United States (1824)

In Osborn, the Court built upon its holding in Cohens. The Court explained that Article III’s “arising under” clause “enables the judicial department to receive jurisdiction to the full extent of the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, when any question respecting them shall assume such a form that the judicial power is capable of acting on it.”

Chief Justice Marshall wrote the majority opinion. He argued that “‘when a question to which the judicial power of the Union is extended by the constitution, forms an ingredient 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.”

Therefore, when Congress generally has the power to grant federal courts jurisdiction to hear disputes, notwithstanding Article III’s grant of jurisdiction.

However, the Supreme Court has continued to modify what a plaintiff must plead to establish federal question jurisdiction. Today, the Court does not exercise federal question jurisdiction when federal law is merely an “ingredient” of the claim. See the discussion of Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson (1986) below for more information.

Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley (1908)

In 1908, the Court created the so-called “Mottley Rule.” The Mottley Rule is a test for whether a case satisfies the federal question statute’s requirements. If a federal question appears in the plaintiff’s “well-pleaded complaint,” it satisfies the Mottley Rule.

Therefore, the plaintiff must raise at least one federal claim in their complaint to satisfy the federal question statute. Whether the defendant has an actual or potential defense based on federal law does not satisfy the Mottley Rule. What matters is whether the plaintiff’s actual claims raise a federal question. If so, they can establish federal question jurisdiction.

For example, consider the Court’s decision in American Well Works v. Layne & Bowler Co. (1916). The plaintiff, American Well Works, manufactured and patented a specific type of pump. They sued the defendant, Layne & Bowler Co., for libel and slander it allegedly made about the patent.

American Wells Works sued Layne & Bowler Co., in a state trial court for $50,000 in damages. Layne & Bowler removed the claim to federal court. They argued that only federal courts have jurisdiction over patent law claims.

The federal district court dismissed the lawsuit. American Well Works appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Court held that the plaintiff’s claims did not include any federal claims. In other words, American Well Works did not claim the defendant violated a federal law or the Constitution. Had it made a claim involving a violation of federal patent law, it could have satisfied the federal question statute. Instead, their claim solely involved damages, not, for example, who had title to the pump’s patent.

Because there was no federal claim, the federal courts did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. Therefore, the state court was the proper venue for the case.

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson (1986)

Plaintiffs from Canada and Scotland sued Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals in an Ohio state court. They alleged Merrell's drug, Bendectin, caused birth defects in their children. The plaintiffs brought the following claims:

• Negligence

• Breach of warranty

• Strict liability

• Fraud

• Gross negligence

• Misbranding

Five of the six claims were state law causes of action. However, the “misbranding” claim was allegedly a federal claim. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), a federal law, by misbranding Bendectin.

Merrell Dow successfully removed the case to federal court because it involved a federal issue. However, the court of appeals ruled that it was improperly removed to federal court. It noted that the FDCA did not create a private cause of action. Therefore, the misbranding claim did not arise under federal law, and the case should have remained in state court.

On review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. It held that because Congress had determined that no private person could file a federal cause of action for an alleged violation of the FDCA, the plaintiff’s complaint did not state a claim “arising under” federal law or the Constitution.

Therefore, because the FDCA did not provide for a federal cause of action, Merrell should not have been able to remove the case to federal court, and the court did not have federal question jurisdiction over the case.