If a federal question claim gets dismissed during a trial, what may the court do regarding supplemental state claims?

When a federal question claim, which is based on a violation of federal law, is dismissed during trial, the court has discretion regarding how to handle supplemental state claims that are related to the federal claim. Supplemental jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear state law claims that are connected to the federal claims.

In this context, if the federal claim is dismissed, the court may still choose to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the related state claim. This reflects the principle that federal courts can adjudicate related state claims to promote judicial efficiency and to avoid multiple lawsuits arising from the same set of facts. The court's decision to retain jurisdiction over the state claim will depend on factors such as judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties involved.

This option considers that the court may still wish to resolve the state law claim rather than force the parties to pursue the matter in state court after having spent time and resources in federal court. Alternatively, if a court chooses to dismiss a federal claim on procedural grounds or other reasons, it may still evaluate the merits of the state claim before deciding to dismiss it.

The other options suggest more restrictive actions, which do not align with the discretion courts have under the supplemental jurisdiction doctrine to retain jurisdiction of related claims after dismissing the federal question.