Opinion ID: 2982831
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Tennessee Constitution Claims

Text: Having dismissed both federal claims and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the African Hair Braiders’ claims asserted under the Tennessee Constitution.6 AFFIRMED. 6 The defendants maintain that we should dismiss with prejudice the African Hair Braiders’ claims asserted under the Tennessee Constitution. The defendants argue that “the Supreme Court has held that § 1367(a)’s grant of jurisdiction does not extend to claims that are barred by the Eleventh Amendment” and cite Raygor v. Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota, 534 U.S. 533, 541–42 (2002) in support of their position. However, the district court exercised its discretionary authority to decline supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(3), not pursuant to subsection (a)’s grant of jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Raygor held “that § 1367(a)’s grant of jurisdiction does not extend to claims against nonconsenting state defendants.” 534 U.S. at 542. Such a holding does not require the district court to wade into the merits of state law claims solely to ensure that such claims are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment before declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. - 13 -