If an investor owns a rental property in a different state, can a federal court hear a claim unrelated to that property?

A federal court can indeed hear a claim that is based on federal law, regardless of whether the claim is related to the property owned by the investor in another state. This is grounded in the concept of federal question jurisdiction, which allows federal courts to adjudicate cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Thus, if the claim is founded on federal law, the federal court has jurisdiction over the case.

For example, if the investor has a claim that involves a federal statute or constitutional issue, the federal court would have the authority to hear this claim even if it has no direct connection to the rental property. The jurisdiction is established based not on the geographical ties of the property, but rather on the nature of the legal issues being raised.

In contrast, the other options present limitations or misunderstandings regarding the jurisdiction of federal courts. Some imply that jurisdiction can only be established through property-related claims or downplay the significance of federal law, which is not accurate under the framework of federal question jurisdiction.