To return to main page, use your web browser "back" button

Here are examples of how this takes place using 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to interpret Article III Section 2.1, known as the “case arising clause.”
The words “arising under … laws of the United States” have chiefly been construed in cases involving not Article III directly, but the statutory grant of federal question jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and its predecessors, which is cast in the same language. It is universally acknowledged, however, that the statutory grant does not exhaust the constitutional power. Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 379 n.51 (1959); Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 515 (1969); see National Mutual Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582, 613-14 (1949) (Rutledge, J., concurring); Mishkin supra, at 160-63; Note on the effect of the Statutory Adoption of the Constitutional Language, Hart & Wechsler, at 870; Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction § 3562 (1975).

As noted in 76 L Ed 2d 831 in reference to Verlinden v Bank of Nigeria 461 U.S. 480, concerning Article III Section 2 Clause 1, and “case arising”. “However, it should be noted that the jurisdiction conferred by the constitutional ‘arising under’ clause is broader than the federal question jurisdiction provided by Congress in 28 U.S.C. §1331, even though the language of the statute is almost identical to that of the constitutional clause. The reason given for this distinction is that there exists policy consideration underlying the purpose of the jurisdictional statute that limit its application and which do not enter into the picture when construing the constitutional authorization for statutory federal question jurisdiction.” [Bold emphasis added]

Additionally, note the distinction between 28 U.S.C. 1330, 1331 and 1337 as a further example of judicial interpretation of the statute instead of the literal constitutional meaning.

Courts §§ 254, 531— Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act — “arising under” jurisdiction
A suit against a foreign state under § 2 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (28 USC § 1330) necessarily raises questions of substantive federal law at the very outset and hence clearly “arises under” federal law for purposes of Article III jurisdiction, since at the threshold of every action in a District Court against a foreign state the court must satisfy itself that one of the specified exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity applies, and, in doing so, it must apply the detailed federal law standards set forth in the Act. Verlinden B. V. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, (1962).