What distinguishes supplemental jurisdiction from original jurisdiction?

The distinction between supplemental jurisdiction and original jurisdiction primarily lies in the nature of claims and parties involved. Supplemental jurisdiction refers specifically to the authority of a court to hear additional claims that are related to a case already before it, allowing for a more comprehensive resolution of the disputes that arise from the same transaction or occurrence.

This means that once a court has original jurisdiction over a case, it can use supplemental jurisdiction to include other claims that might not independently qualify for the court's jurisdiction, thereby promoting judicial efficiency and avoidance of multiple lawsuits for related issues. For example, if a plaintiff sues a defendant under a federal statute, the court may also hear related state law claims against the same defendant, as long as those claims form part of the same case or controversy.

The other options do not accurately represent the core elements of supplemental jurisdiction. For instance, supplemental jurisdiction is not confined to federal claims alone; it can be invoked for related state law claims provided they meet the requirements set forth in the applicable statutes. Additionally, supplemental jurisdiction is not limited to state courts—it's a doctrine applied primarily in federal court to hear related state claims alongside federal claims. Finally, supplemental jurisdiction is indeed relevant to the parties involved, as it determines what claims can be brought in the context