Civil Procedure questions often combine two separate ideas: whether the case belongs in federal court at all, and which sovereign’s rule controls once it gets there. This guide keeps jurisdiction and Erie in separate lanes.
Civil Procedure questions often combine two separate ideas: whether the case belongs in federal court at all, and which sovereign’s rule controls once it gets there. This guide keeps jurisdiction and Erie in separate lanes.
Federal question jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear cases "arising under" federal law. The key is the WELL-PLEADED COMPLAINT RULE.
THE WELL-PLEADED COMPLAINT RULE: Federal question must appear on the FACE of plaintiff's COMPLAINT - not from: • Anticipated defenses (even if defense will definitely be federal) • Federal preemption issues • Defendant's counterclaims • Plaintiff's replication to a defense
Ask: "Looking ONLY at the complaint, does P's cause of action require interpretation of federal law?"
WHAT COUNTS AS "ARISING UNDER": 1. FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION: • Claim is created by federal statute (42 USC §1983, federal antitrust, securities fraud) • This is the clearest case - federal law gives P the right to sue
2. STATE CLAIM WITH ESSENTIAL FEDERAL ELEMENT (Grable Test): A state law claim can "arise under" federal law if: • Federal issue is NECESSARILY RAISED • Federal issue is ACTUALLY DISPUTED • Federal issue is SUBSTANTIAL • Exercising jurisdiction won't disturb federal-state balance
This is RARE - most state claims stay in state court even if federal issues arise.
WHAT DOES NOT CREATE FEDERAL QUESTION: • Federal DEFENSE (even if certain to arise) • Complete preemption by federal law (EXCEPTION: This creates federal question) • Federal law used only as evidence • Declaratory judgment where underlying claim would not be federal
THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT EXCEPTION: Look at the UNDERLYING dispute. If D could have sued P on a federal claim, P's declaratory judgment action "arises under" federal law.
HYPO: P sues D in state court claiming breach of contract. P's complaint alleges D violated their agreement. D plans to defend by arguing the contract is preempted by federal law. D removes to federal court claiming federal question jurisdiction.
ANALYSIS - Is there federal question jurisdiction?
STEP 1: Apply the WELL-PLEADED COMPLAINT RULE Look ONLY at P's complaint: • P's claim = breach of contract • Contract law = STATE law • P's complaint makes no mention of federal law
STEP 2: Does federal defense create federal question? D's preemption defense is a FEDERAL issue, but: • Federal defenses do NOT create federal question jurisdiction • Even if D will certainly raise this defense • Even if D is right about preemption
The test is what appears on P's complaint, NOT what D will argue.
RESULT: NO federal question jurisdiction. Case must be REMANDED to state court.
---
HYPO 2 - COMPLETE PREEMPTION EXCEPTION:
P sues former employer in state court for wrongful termination. P alleges breach of employment contract. Unknown to P, the employment is governed by a collective bargaining agreement under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA).
ANALYSIS: • LMRA completely preempts state law claims requiring interpretation of CBAs • Complete preemption is different from ordinary preemption • Complete preemption CONVERTS the state claim INTO a federal claim • This DOES create federal question jurisdiction
RESULT: Federal question jurisdiction EXISTS. The complete preemption doctrine (for certain statutes like LMRA, ERISA) transforms what looks like a state claim into a federal claim.
Section sources