In this Article, I aim to sketch out the claim that the Roberts Court quietly—and perhaps not entirely intentionally—is pushing 28 U.S.C. § 1331 federal question subject matter jurisdiction doctrine toward a more rights-inclusive approach that fosters a greater doctrinal focus upon congressional intent. I have noted this movement toward more focus upon congressional intent in prior work in the context of one Roberts Court case, Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC. In this Article, I point to a similar shift in five other cases: Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne Int’l Drilling Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning, Gunn v. Minton, Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., and Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh. I consider this move, even if modest, a positive outcome and one that, perhaps, points to legal process school underpinnings for the Roberts Court’s procedural rulings.