Skip to main content
search

Supplemental Jurisdiction

A way for federal courts to hear claims for which they would not ordinarily have jurisdiction.  Supplemental jurisdiction only exists in the situation where a lawsuit consists of more than one claim, and the federal court has valid jurisdiction (either diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction) over at least one of the claims.   In that situation, if the federal claim and the other claims arise out of a "common nucleus of operative fact," then the court may (but does not have to) exercise supplemental jurisdiction to hear the other claims as well.  United Mine Workers v Gibbs, 383 US 715 (1966). 

 

Pendent [supplemental] jurisdiction, in the sense of judicial power, exists whenever there is a claim "arising under [t]he Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority . . . ," U.S.Const., Art. III, § 2, and the relationship between that claim and the state claim permits the conclusion that the entire action before the court comprises but one constitutional "case." The federal claim must have substance sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court. Levering & Garriges Co. v. Morrin, 289 U. S. 103. The state and federal claims must derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. But if, considered without regard to their federal or state character, a plaintiff's claims are such that he would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding, then, assuming substantiality of the federal issues, there is power in federal courts to hear the whole.

United Mine Workers v Gibbs, 383 US 715 (1966).