Opinion ID: 201580
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdiction over the State's Complaint

Text: The Tribe asserts that the well-pleaded complaint rule did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction over the State's complaint, which the Tribe removed from state court to federal district court.1 The federal district court determined that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the State's complaint because (1) the State did not bring its claims under the Settlement Act; (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1362 does not provide a viable basis for federal jurisdiction because it only vests jurisdiction in a federal court over actions brought by an Indian tribe under the laws of the United States; and (3) the district court found the cases cited by the Tribe in support of removal to be unavailing and inapposite. Narragansett Indian Tribe, 296 F. Supp. 2d at 160. 1 Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, it must be clear from the plaintiff's complaint that there is a federal question. Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). -9- The Tribe argues that the district court should have applied the artful pleading rule to the State's complaint.2 But the alleged federal issue -- whether the State has authority to tax the Tribe under the Settlement Act –- is a defense. Even had it been preemptively included and argued against in the State's complaint, it would not have given rise to federal question jurisdiction over the State's complaint. See Louisville & Nashville R.R., 211 U.S. at 152 (holding that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331 because the federal issue arose only from the plaintiff's anticipation of a defense based on a federal statute). It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action, and asserts that the defense is invalidated by some provision of the Constitution of the United States. Although such allegations show that very likely, in the course of the litigation, a question under the Constitution would arise, they do not show that the suit, that is, the plaintiff's original cause of action, arises under the Constitution. Id. Therefore, we find that the court did not err in failing to apply the artful pleading rule in this instance. 2 The artful pleading rule bars a plaintiff from concealing a necessary federal question by omitting it from the complaint. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 22 (1983). -10-