'Federal question jurisdiction' is a term used in the
United States law of
civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a
United States federal court has
subject matter jurisdiction to hear a
civil case because the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the
Constitution,
laws, or
treaties of the United States.
Article III of the United States Constitution permits federal courts to hear such cases, so long as the
United States Congress passes a statute to that effect. However, when Congress passed the
Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the newly created federal courts to hear such cases, it initially chose not to allow the lower federal courts to possess federal question jurisdiction for fear that it would make the courts too powerful. The
Federalists briefly created such jurisdiction in the
Judiciary Act of 1801, but it was repealed the following year, and not restored until
1875. The statute is now found at : "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
Unlike
diversity jurisdiction, which is based on the parties coming from different states, federal question jurisdiction no longer has any
amount in controversy requirement - Congress eliminated this requirement in actions against the United States in
1976, and in all federal question cases in
1980. Therefore, a federal court can hear a federal question case even if no money is sought by the
plaintiff.
To meet the requirement of a case "arising under" federal law, the federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff's
complaint. There has been considerable dispute over what constitutes a "federal question" in these circumstances, but it is now settled law that the plaintiff cannot seek the jurisdiction of a federal court merely because it anticipates that the
defendant is going to raise a defense based on the Constitution, or on a federal statute. This "well-pleaded complaint" rule has been criticized by legal scholars, but Congress has so far chosen not to change the law, although the Supreme Court has made clear it is free to do so.
See also
Diversity jurisdiction