In the case of Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Allapattah Services, Inc., et al., 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a jurisdictional issue related to class action lawsuits and diversity jurisdiction (the ability for federal courts to hear cases involving parties from different states). The plaintiffs were a group of Exxon dealers who alleged that Exxon overcharged them for fuel in violation of their franchise agreements. While some members met the amount-in-controversy requirement ($75,000) necessary for diversity jurisdiction, others did not. The question before the court was whether it could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims that fell short of this threshold if at least one plaintiff's claim exceeded it. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Exxon by a 5-4 vote stating that as long as one plaintiff meets both requirements - diverse citizenship and amount-in-controversy - then federal courts can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims within the same case even if they do not meet these criteria individually.

In the dissenting opinion for Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Allapattah Services, Inc., Justice Ginsburg disagreed with the majority's interpretation of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). She argued that this statute does not permit federal courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims by additional plaintiffs who do not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement in diversity cases, even if other plaintiffs' claims satisfy this requirement. According to her, Congress intended §1367(a) to codify existing doctrines on ancillary and pendent jurisdiction but did not intend it to expand these doctrines significantly as interpreted by the majority. She also expressed concerns about potential abuses of procedural rules and manipulation of federal court jurisdiction if such an expansive reading were adopted.