Under federal question jurisdiction, what must be shown to establish federal jurisdiction?

• A. The claim arises under federal law or the U.S. Constitution, and it must be pleaded in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.
• B. The claim arises under state law and there is no federal issue.
• C. The claim involves a federal officer and is automatically federal.
• D. Federal question jurisdiction exists whenever the plaintiff seeks a federal remedy.

Answer: (A)

Federal question jurisdiction rests on the claim itself arising under federal law or the U.S. Constitution, and that must be shown in the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. This is the well-pleaded complaint rule: the federal issue must be a necessary part of the plaintiff’s claim as pleaded, not something that only appears as a defense or as a potential consequence of the defendant’s conduct. So if the complaint alleges a federal question (a federal statute, the Constitution, or a treaty as the basis for the claim), jurisdiction exists; if the claim is really a state-law claim with only a federal defense or a possible federal issue that might arise later, there’s no federal-question basis.

A claim involving a federal officer isn’t automatically federal jurisdiction; removal or other procedures may apply in some circumstances, but simply having a federal officer in the case does not by itself make the case arise under federal law. Likewise, seeking a federal remedy does not by itself create federal-question jurisdiction—the claim must actually arise under federal law in the plaintiff’s pleaded allegations.