How does supplemental jurisdiction affect the scope of federal jurisdiction?

Supplemental jurisdiction plays a significant role in shaping the scope of federal jurisdiction by allowing federal courts to hear additional claims that are not independently within their original jurisdiction, provided those claims are related to the claims that are already before the court. This means that if a plaintiff brings a federal claim, they may include state law claims that arise from the same set of facts or are closely related to the federal claim.

This capacity to include related state claims not only promotes judicial efficiency by resolving all related issues in one forum but also helps to avoid the risk of inconsistent verdicts from different courts. The core premise is that once a federal court has jurisdiction over a primary claim, it can exercise supplemental jurisdiction to consider other claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claim, significantly expanding the court's jurisdictional purview beyond just federal law matters.

The other options are limited in scope and do not accurately reflect how supplemental jurisdiction functions; it does not narrow claims strictly to federal law, does not remain unaffected by jurisdictional boundaries, and certainly does not restrict itself to constitutional issues alone.