What is the well-pleaded complaint rule for federal-question jurisdiction?

• A. A federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint; defenses or counterclaims do not create jurisdiction.
• B. A federal question can be inferred from the defendant's defenses.
• C. A federal question only exists if the complaint references a federal statute.
• D. A federal question exists if the plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that federal-question jurisdiction hinges on the plaintiff’s own allegations. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, a federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. Defenses or counterclaims raised by the defendant cannot establish federal jurisdiction, because jurisdiction must originate from the plaintiff’s claim, not from anticipated defenses. A federal question can arise from any federal law—statutes, the Constitution, or treaties—as long as it is presented by the plaintiff’s complaint. And simply seeking monetary damages does not by itself create a federal question.

So the best answer is that the federal question must be stated in the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; defenses or counterclaims do not create jurisdiction; federal questions can come from the Constitution or treaties as well as statutes; and monetary damages alone do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.