A district court is asked to grant a declaratory judgment to block a rule that lacks a federal question and does not threaten the amount in controversy. Which principle governs whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction?

• A. Article III standing requirements
• B. The amount in controversy must exceed $75,000 in all federal questions
• C. Existence of a federal question is mandatory for subject-matter jurisdiction in civil actions
• D. Diversity jurisdiction is required unless there is a federal question present

Answer: (A)

Subject-matter jurisdiction in federal court hinges on Article III standing. A court can hear a case only if there is a concrete case or controversy and the plaintiff has legitimate standing to sue—meaning an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized, actual or imminent, causally connected to the defendant’s conduct, and likely redressable by relief. In this scenario, the request is to block a rule that does not raise a federal question and does not affect the amount in controversy. Without a federal question or a threshold amount at stake, the basis for jurisdiction must come from a plaintiff’s standing to challenge the rule. If the plaintiff can show injury in fact and the other standing requirements, the court has subject-matter jurisdiction under Article III to entertain the declaratory judgment. The other options misstate how jurisdiction works: federal question jurisdiction is not mandatory in all civil actions, diversity jurisdiction has its own requirements and is not the sole fallback, and the $75,000 threshold is a limitation tied to diversity, not to every federal-question-free suit.