⚡ 10-Second Rule
A federal court takes the case only if the plaintiff's own claim is built on federal law.
🧒 ELI-10 Scene
The science fair has a special table just for space projects. Judge Dana decides who sits there. She reads only the entry form each kid fills out. Marco's form says his project is about growing tomatoes. At the bottom he adds, "Some kids might complain my grow lamp breaks the space-camp rules." Dana shakes her head. A complaint someone might make later is not his project. His own form must be about space. Federal courts read cases the same way: only the plaintiff's own form counts.
⚖️ Actual Rule
28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Under the well-pleaded complaint rule of Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908), the federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint. An anticipated federal defense — even one certain to be raised, and even the only truly disputed issue — does not create federal question jurisdiction. Because subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, the court must dismiss whenever it is absent, on its own motion if necessary.
ELI-10 translation: the plaintiff's own claim must be federal; a federal defense doesn't open the door.
🔍 Ask These Questions
- Look only at the complaint — the plaintiff's own statement of the claim. (Read just the plaintiff's form, nothing else.)
- Strip out anything extra — anticipated defenses, replies to defenses, background noise. (Cross out the parts guessing what the other side will say.)
- Does the claim itself arise under the Constitution, a federal statute, or a treaty? (Is federal law what the plaintiff needs to win?)
- A federal defense or federal counterclaim does not count. (The other side's federal argument can't drag the case in.)
- Remember there is no amount-in-controversy requirement under § 1331. (Federal question cases can be about any amount, even five dollars.)
- If no federal question appears, check diversity or supplemental jurisdiction before giving up. (No space table? Maybe another table still fits.)
⚠️ Bar Trap
Exam language: Examiners plant a prominent federal issue in the defendant's anticipated defense — preemption, a federal statute, a constitutional immunity — and invite you to find jurisdiction because federal law will "clearly control the outcome." Under Mottley, jurisdiction fails unless the federal issue is an element of the plaintiff's own well-pleaded claim. A related lure: suggesting the parties consented to federal jurisdiction; subject matter jurisdiction can never be created by consent or waiver.
ELI-10: Federal words in the defendant's mouth don't count. Only the plaintiff's own claim matters. And nobody can agree their way into the wrong court.
🧪 Question
An orchard owner sued a drone-delivery company in federal district court, asserting state-law claims for trespass and nuisance based on daily low-altitude flights over her orchard. Both parties are citizens of the same state. The complaint alleges that the company "will undoubtedly contend that federal aviation regulations preempt any state-law restriction on its flight paths," and asks the court to hold that the regulations do not preempt her claims. The company moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Should the court grant the motion?
(A) No, because the case will necessarily turn on the interpretation of federal aviation regulations. (B) No, because the complaint itself raises and addresses the preemption issue. (C) Yes, because the federal issue appears only as an anticipated defense and the plaintiff's own claims arise under state law. (D) Yes, because trespass and nuisance claims may never be heard in federal court.
Answer: (C). The orchard owner's claims are creatures of state tort law. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, an anticipated preemption defense — even one the plaintiff pleads around in her own complaint — cannot supply § 1331 jurisdiction, and there is no diversity.
💡 Why the Wrong Answers Are Wrong
- (A) confuses what will decide the case with what the claim arises under; Mottley rejects jurisdiction even when the federal defense is the only real dispute.
- (B) rewards artful pleading of a defense; a "well-pleaded" complaint is read with anticipated defenses stripped out, wherever the plaintiff physically put them.
- (D) overshoots: state-law claims can reach federal court through diversity or supplemental jurisdiction — just not on these facts.
- ELI-10: The misconception is thinking any federal issue anywhere opens the federal door. Only the plaintiff's own claim is the key.
