Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson
Citation and Court
478 U.S. 804 (1986), Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Ohio residents sued Merrell Dow in Ohio state court for birth defects allegedly caused by Bendectin. One of several claims alleged that Bendectin was “misbranded” in violation of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), for which there was no federal private right of action. Merrell Dow removed to federal court arguing the federal law element gave rise to federal question jurisdiction.
Issue
Whether the presence of a federal law element in a state law cause of action — specifically, a violation of a federal statute that provides no private right of action — suffices to establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Holding
A complaint does not “arise under” federal law for purposes of § 1331 merely because it references a federal statute as an element of a state law claim, at least where Congress has not provided a federal private right of action for that statute.
Rule / Doctrine
Federal question jurisdiction requires more than the incidental presence of a federal issue in a state law claim. Where Congress has deliberately declined to create a private federal remedy, allowing federal jurisdiction based on the same federal element in a state law suit would circumvent that congressional choice. The mere presence of a federal law ingredient does not automatically confer § 1331 jurisdiction.
Significance
Merrell Dow is the key pre-Grable case on embedded federal question jurisdiction. It is in tension with Grable & Sons Metal Products v. Darue Engineering (2005), which held that a federal issue can support § 1331 jurisdiction if it is “necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial, and capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance.” The two cases together define when a state claim can “arise under” federal law.