How does supplemental jurisdiction differ from ancillary jurisdiction?

Supplemental jurisdiction is indeed broader than ancillary jurisdiction, which is why this choice is the correct answer. Supplemental jurisdiction, as established by 28 U.S.C. § 1367, allows federal courts to hear claims that are not independently subject to federal jurisdiction if they are related to a claim that is already before the court. This means it encompasses a wide range of claims, including state law claims as long as they arise from the same nucleus of operative fact as the original federal claim.

Ancillary jurisdiction, on the other hand, has a more limited scope. It historically referred to the ability of federal courts to hear additional claims that are closely connected to the primary jurisdictional claim, but its application has been largely subsumed by the broader concept of supplemental jurisdiction. Supplemental jurisdiction applies to both federal and state claims without the historical constraints that ancillary jurisdiction invoked.

The other choices do not correctly capture the relationship or distinctions between these two concepts, as ancillary jurisdiction does not only pertain to federal claims, supplemental jurisdiction is not limited to state claims only, and the terms are not interchangeable since supplemental jurisdiction encompasses a wider array of claims.