In the 1988 case Finley v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear additional claims related to a federal claim unless Congress has explicitly granted them permission. The case involved a woman who filed suit against both private parties and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) after her husband died in an airplane crash. She initially brought her claim under state law but added a federal claim when she learned of potential FAA negligence. When she tried to add more state-law claims related to the same incident, however, it was determined that there was no "pendent" jurisdiction for these new claims because they were not sufficiently connected with her original federal question lawsuit against the FAA.

In the dissenting opinion for Finley v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to dismiss a petition for writ of certiorari due to lack of jurisdiction contradicted previous court rulings and federal law. The dissenters believed that 28 U.S.C §1257 provided sufficient grounds for jurisdiction as it allows review of any final judgment or decree rendered by the highest court in which a decision could be had. They also pointed out that this case involved an important issue regarding state sovereignty and federalism, making Supreme Court review necessary. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Mine Workers v Gibbs (1965), arguing instead that Gibbs allowed pendent-claim jurisdiction if there is a common nucleus of operative fact between state and federal claims - something present in this case according to them.