28 U.S.C. § 1367
Section 1367 · Supplemental jurisdiction
Amended 1 time on record
The circuits are split over this section — Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1367 authorizes supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of additional plaintiffs or class members who do not individually satisfy the diversity amount-in-controversy requirement (i.e., whether § 1367 overruled Zahn)
Applied in 13,274 court decisions — leading case Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America (1994)
Most recently applied in Smith v. Mercy Health-Clermont Hosp., L.L.C. (November 2025)
Applied most in the First Circuit Circuit (1,010 decisions)
Cases citing this section usually also cite 42 U.S.C. § 1983 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332
How often courts cite this section
Court decisions citing this, by year.Markers show enactment, consequential amendments, and circuit splits over this section — watch for a citation surge after a change or a disagreement. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.
(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.
(b) In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title, the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.
(c) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if—
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,
(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or
(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
(d) The period of limitations for any claim asserted under subsection (a), and for any other claim in the same action that is voluntarily dismissed at the same time as or after the dismissal of the claim under subsection (a), shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period.
(e) As used in this section, the term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.
Editorial notes U.S. Code · Office of the Law Revision Counsel
References in Text
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in subsec. (b), are set out in the Appendix to this title.
Effective Date
Section 310(c) of Pub. L. 101–650 provided that: “The amendments made by this section [enacting this section] shall apply to civil actions commenced on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 1, 1990].”