What occurs if the anchor claim is dismissed regarding supplemental jurisdiction?

When an anchor claim is dismissed, supplemental jurisdiction can be impacted significantly. The principle behind this is rooted in the notion that supplemental claims are inherently tied to the anchor claim; they derive their jurisdictional authority from the existence of that original claim.

If the anchor claim is dismissed, the court generally has the discretion to decide what happens to the supplemental claims. They may choose to dismiss these claims unless there exists an independent basis for federal jurisdiction, such as diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. This means that if the supplemental claims do not have a standalone source of jurisdiction and are closely related to the dismissed anchor claim, they will likely be dismissed as well.

This ensures that the court efficiently manages its resources and maintains the integrity of the judicial system by not entertaining claims that lack independent justification for federal jurisdiction. Thus, if the anchor claim goes away, supplemental claims can follow unless they can stand on their own merit under a different form of jurisdiction.