October Term 2024 · Docket 23-677

Does a federal court lose jurisdiction when a plaintiff drops federal claims?

the sides that brought the case argue the court must dismiss state claims after federal claims drop. the opposing sides argue the court keeps jurisdiction over state claims.

Official caption
Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    the sides that brought the case argue the Eighth Circuit decision is an outlier. They say it conflicts with Section 1367 text. They say it conflicts with structure.

    the opposing sides argue experience should guide the test. They say the law creating the claim controls. They say this test is definitive.

    the sides that brought the case say ruling for the opposing sides requires overruling precedent. They list several cases that support their view. They say the opposing sides lose under experience.

    the opposing sides say they would win without Section 1367. They say the issue was not squarely presented before. They say party presentation rules matter.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests federal court power over state claims. the sides that brought the case want dismissal of state claims. the opposing sides want the court to keep those claims.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 7, 2024.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the court to dismiss state claims. They want to end the case in federal court.

the opposing sides want the court to keep state claims. They want the case to continue in federal court.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue Section 1367 limits jurisdiction. They argue the court loses power when federal claims drop.

the opposing sides argue experience defines jurisdiction. They argue the law creating the claim controls.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Kagan asked if a court keeps state claims after federal claims drop. She asked if this applies to original cases.

Justice Sotomayor asked if Congress addressed this in Section 1367. She asked if the party can appeal dismissal.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines federal court power. It determines when courts dismiss state claims. It affects how plaintiffs file mixed cases.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON