Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 433.0

524US2

Unit: $U91

[09-06-00 17:16:26] PAGES PGT: OPIN

388 WISCONSIN DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS v. SCHACHT

Opinion of the Court

permitting supplemental jurisdiction, nor any other law, see,
e. g., § 1441(c), gives the federal court the power to decide a
claim barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Pennhurst
State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U. S. 89, 121
(1984); Frances J., 19 F. 3d, at 341.

Third, the argument looks to removal based upon “di-
versity jurisdiction,” 28 U. S. C. § 1332, for analogical au-
thority that leads to its conclusion, namely, that this “juris-
dictional” problem is so serious that the presence of even one
Eleventh-Amendment-barred claim destroys removal juris-
diction with respect to all claims (i. e., the entire “case”).
See, e. g., 116 F. 3d, at 1152 (citing Frances J., supra, at 341);
McKay v. Boyd Constr. Co., 769 F. 2d, at 1086–1087 (discuss-
ing analogy to removal based on diversity jurisdiction). A
case falls within the federal district court’s “original” diver-
sity “jurisdiction” only if diversity of citizenship among the
parties is complete, i. e., only if there is no plaintiff and no
defendant who are citizens of the same State. See Carden
v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U. S. 185, 187 (1990); Strawbridge
v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267 (1806). But cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc.
21; Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U. S. 826,
832–838 (1989) (Rule 21 authorizes courts to dismiss nondi-
verse defendants in order to cure jurisdictional defects, in-
stead of the entire case). Consequently, this Court has indi-
cated that a defendant cannot remove a case that contains
some claims against “diverse” defendants as long as there is
one claim brought against a “nondiverse” defendant. See
If the
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U. S. 61, 68–69 (1996).
analogy is appropriate, then, an Eleventh Amendment bar
with respect to one claim would prevent removal of a case
that contains some “arising under” claims, which, had they
stood alone, would have permitted removal. Frances J.,
supra, at 341; McKay, supra, at 1087.

We ﬁnd the analogy unconvincing. This case differs sig-
niﬁcantly from a diversity case with respect to a federal dis-