After petitioner had been discharged without a hearing by respondent county treasurer from her job in his office, she brought suit against the treasurer, the respondent county, and other county officers in Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that her discharge violated her federal constitutional rights and seeking injunctive relief and damages. Jurisdiction over the federal claim was asserted under 28 U.S.C. 1343 (3), which gives federal district courts jurisdiction over "any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person" to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of federal constitutional rights, and pendent jurisdiction was alleged to lie over a state-law claim against the county. The District Court dismissed the action as to the county on the ground that since the county was not suable as a "person" under 1983, there was no independent basis of jurisdiction over it, and that thus the court had no power to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the claim against the county. On an appeal from this dismissal the Court of Appeals affirmed. Held: A fair reading of the language used in 1343 (3), together with the scope of 1983, under which counties are excluded from the "person[s]" answerable to the [427 U.S. 1, 2] plaintiff "in an action at law [or] suit in equity" to redress the enumerated deprivations, requires a holding that the joinder of a municipal corporation, like the county here, for purposes of asserting a state-law claim not within federal jurisdiction, is without the District Court's statutory jurisdiction. While with respect to litigation where nonfederal questions or claims were bound up with the federal claim upon which the parties were already in federal court, there is nothing in Art. III's grant of judicial power that prevents adjudication of the nonfederal portions of the parties' dispute, it is quite another thing to permit a nonfederal claim in turn to be the basis for joining a party over whom no independent federal jurisdiction exists, simply because that claim derives from the "common nucleus of operative fact," giving rise to the dispute between the parties to the federal claim. Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 , distinguished. The addition of a completely new party under such circumstances would run counter to the well-established principle that federal courts, as opposed to state trial courts of general jurisdiction, are courts of limited jurisdiction marked out by Congress. Pp. 6-19.
513 F.2d 1257, affirmed.
REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and STEWART, WHITE, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined, post, p. 19.
Norman Rosenberg argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was R. Max Etter, Sr.
Donald C. Brockett argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.
MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the "subtle and complex question with far-reaching implications," alluded to but not answered in Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 715 (1973), and Philbrook v. Glodgett, 421 U.S. 707, 720 (1975): whether the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction extends to confer jurisdiction over a party as to whom [427 U.S. 1, 3] no independent basis of federal jurisdiction exists. In this action, where jurisdiction over the main, federal claim against various officials of Spokane County, Wash., was grounded in 28 U.S.C. 1343 (3), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that pendent jurisdiction was not available to adjudicate petitioner's state-law claims against Spokane County, over which party federal jurisdiction was otherwise nonexistent. While noting that its previous holdings to this effect were left undisturbed by Moor, which arose from that Circuit, the Court of Appeals was "not unaware of the widespread rejection" of its position in almost all other Federal Circuits. 513 F.2d 1257, 1261 (1975). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict on this important question. 423 U.S. 823 (1975). We affirm.
This case arises at the pleading stage, and the allegations in petitioner's complaint are straightforward. Petitioner was hired in 1971 by respondent Howard, the Spokane County treasurer, for clerical work in that office. Two months later Howard informed petitioner by letter that although her job performance was "excellent," she would be dismissed, effective two weeks hence, because she was allegedly "living with [her] boy friend." Howard's action, petitioner alleged, was taken pursuant to a state statute which provides that the appointing county officer "may revoke each appointment at pleasure." 1 Though a hearing was requested, none was held before or after the effective date of the discharge.
Petitioner's action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, as embodied in her second amended complaint, claimed principally under [427 U.S. 1, 4] the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 2 that the discharge violated her substantive constitutional rights under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and was procedurally defective under the latter's Due Process Clause. An injunction restraining the dismissal and damages for salary loss were sought against Howard, his wife, the named county commissioners, and the county. Jurisdiction over the federal claim was asserted under 28 U.S.C. 1343 (3), 3 and pendent jurisdiction was alleged to lie over the "state law claims against the parties." As to the county, the state-law [427 U.S. 1, 5] claim was said to rest on state statutes waiving the county's sovereign immunity and providing for vicarious liability arising out of tortious conduct of its officials. 513 F.2d, at 1358. The District Court dismissed the action as to the county on the ground that since it was not suable as a "person" under 1983, there was no independent basis of jurisdiction over the county, and thus "this court [has no] power to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the claims against Spokane County." From this final judgment, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 54 (b), petitioner appealed.
The Court of Appeals first rejected petitioner's claim that her 1983 action against the county fell within the District Court's 1343 (3) jurisdiction, as obviously foreclosed by this Court's decisions in Moor, supra, and City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507 (1973). Turning to petitioner's pendent-jurisdiction argument, the Court of Appeals noted, 513 F.2d, at 1260, that the District Court had made no alternative ruling on the "suitability of this case for the discretionary exercise of pendent jurisdiction" under the second part of the rule enunciated in Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 -727 (1966). But since this Court in Moor had expressly left undisturbed the Ninth Circuit's refusal to apply pendent jurisdiction over a nonfederal party, the instant panel felt free to apply that rule as set out in Hymer v. Chai, 407 F.2d 136 (CA9 1969), and Moor v. Madigan, 458 F.2d 1217 (CA9 1972), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 411 U.S. 693 (1973). This kind of case, the Court of Appeals reasoned, presented the "weakest rationale" for extension of Gibbs to pendent parties: (1) The state claims are pressed against a party who would otherwise not be in federal court; 4 (2) diversity cases generally present more [427 U.S. 1, 6] attractive opportunities for exercise of pendent-party jurisdiction, since all claims therein by definition arise from state law; (3) federal courts should be wary of extending court-created doctrines of jurisdiction to reach parties who are expressly excluded by Congress from liability, and hence federal jurisdiction, in the federal statute sought to be applied to the defendant in the main claim; (4) pendent state-law claims arising in a civil rights context will "almost inevitably" involve the federal court in difficult and unsettled questions of state law, with the accompanying potential for jury confusion. 513 F.2d, at 1261-1262.
The question whether "pendent" federal jurisdiction encompasses not merely the litigation of additional claims between parties with respect to whom there is federal jurisdiction, but also the joining of additional parties with respect to whom there is no independent basis of federal jurisdiction, has been much litigated in other federal courts 5 and much discussed by commentators 6 since this Court's decision in Gibbs. Gibbs, in turn, is the most recent in a long line of our cases dealing with the relationship between the judicial power of the United States and the actual contours of the cases and controversies to which that power is extended by Art. III.
In Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738 [427 U.S. 1, 7] (1824), Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in his opinion for the Court addressed the argument that the presence in a federal lawsuit of questions which were not dependent on the construction of a law of the United States prevented the federal court from exercising Art. III jurisdiction, even in a case in which the plaintiff had been authorized by Congress to sue in federal court. Noting that "[t]here is scarcely any case, every part of which depends" upon federal law, id., at 820, the Chief Justice rejected the contention:
In Gibbs, the respondent brought an action in federal court against petitioner UMW, asserting parallel claims - a federal statutory claim and a claim under the common law of Tennessee - arising out of alleged concerted union efforts to deprive him of contractual and employment relationships with the coal mine's owners. Though the federal claim was ultimately dismissed after trial, and though diversity was absent, the lower courts sustained jurisdiction over the state-law claim, and affirmed the damages award based thereon. Before reaching the merits (on which the lower courts were reversed), this Court addressed the argument that under the rule of pendent jurisdiction as set out in Hurn v. Oursler, supra, at 245-246, Gibbs had merely stated "two separate and distinct causes of action" as opposed to "two distinct grounds in support of a single cause of action," in which former case the federal court lacked the power to "retain and dispose" of the "non-federal cause of action." The Court stated that since the Hurn test was formulated before the unification of law and equity by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it was therefore unnecessarily tied to the outmoded concept of a "cause of [427 U.S. 1, 9] action" developed under code pleading rules. Recognizing that the Federal Rules themselves cannot expand federal-court jurisdiction, the Court nevertheless found in them a sufficient basis to go beyond Hurn's "unnecessarily grudging" approach to parallel claims, and to adopt a more flexible treatment within the contours of Art. III, 2. Thus, in a federal-question case, where the federal claim is of sufficient substance, and the factual relationship between "that claim and the state claim permits the conclusion that the entire action before the court comprises but one constitutional `case,'" pendent jurisdiction extends to the state claim. 383 U.S., at 725 . The Court, in the second aspect of the Gibbs formulation, went on to enumerate the various factors bearing on a district court's discretionary decision whether the power should be exercised in a given parallel-claims case, emphasizing that "pendent jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff's right." Id., at 726.
These cases, from Osborn to Gibbs, show that in treating litigation where nonfederal questions or claims were bound up with the federal claim upon which the parties were already in federal court, this Court has found nothing in Art. III's grant of judicial power which prevented adjudication of the nonfederal portions of the parties' dispute. None of them, however, adverted to the separate question, involved in the instant case, of whether a nonfederal claim could in turn be the basis for joining a party over whom no independent federal jurisdiction exists, simply because that claim could be derived from the "common nucleus of operative fact" giving rise to the dispute between the parties to the federal claim.
But while none of the foregoing line of cases discussed the joining of additional parties, other decisions of this Court have developed a doctrine of "ancillary jurisdiction," [427 U.S. 1, 10] and it is in part upon this development - and its relationship to Gibbs - that petitioner relies to support "pendent party" jurisdiction here. Under this doctrine, the Court has identified certain considerations which justified the joining of parties with respect to whom there was no independent basis of federal jurisdiction. In Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450 (1861), the Court held that the state court had no jurisdiction over a replevin action brought by creditor claimants to property that had already been attached by the federal marshal in a federal diversity action. The claimants argued that a want of state-court jurisdiction would leave them without a remedy, since diversity between them and the marshal was lacking. This Court stated that an equitable action in federal court by those claimants, seeking to prevent injustice in the diversity suit, would not have been "an original suit, but ancillary and dependent, supplementary merely to the original suit," and thus maintainable irrespective of diversity of citizenship. Id., at 460. A similar approach was taken in Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U.S. 61 (1885), where, after a creditors' suit to set aside an allegedly fraudulent conveyance was removed to federal court on grounds of diversity, other nondiverse creditors were permitted to intervene to assert an identical interest. Since it was merely a matter of form whether the latter appeared as parties or came in later under a final decree to prove their claims before a master, the federal court "could incidentally decree in favor of [the nondiverse] creditors[, and s]uch a proceeding would be ancillary to the jurisdiction acquired between the original parties . . . ." Id., at 64. Dunham was in turn held controlling in Supreme Tribe of Ben-Hur v. Cauble, 255 U.S. 356 (1921). There, suing in diversity, out-of-state "Class A" members of an Indiana fraternal benefit society had sought a decree adjudicating their common interests in the control and disposition of [427 U.S. 1, 11] the society's funds. After successfully defending that action, the society brought a second suit in federal court seeking to protect that judgment as against an identical state-court action brought by members of "Class A" who were of Indiana citizenship. Since under Dunham "intervention of the Indiana citizens in the [original] suit would not have defeated the jurisdiction already acquired," 255 U.S., at 366 , the earlier judgment was binding against them, and the federal court had ancillary jurisdiction over the society's suit to enjoin the later state action, irrespective of diversity.
The doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction developed in the foregoing cases is bottomed on the notion that since federal jurisdiction in the principal suit effectively controls the property or fund under dispute, other claimants thereto should be allowed to intervene in order to protect their interest, without regard to jurisdiction. 7 As this Court stated in Fulton Bank v. Hozier, 267 U.S. 276, 280 (1925):
For purposes of addressing the jurisdictional question in this case, however, we think it quite unnecessary to formulate any general, all-encompassing jurisdictional rule. Given the complexities of the many manifestations of federal jurisdiction, together with the countless factual permutations possible under the Federal Rules, there is little profit in attempting to decide, for example, whether there are any "principled" differences between pendent and ancillary jurisdiction; or, if there are, what effect Gibbs had on such differences. Since it is upon Gibbs' language that the lower federal courts have relied in extending the kind of pendent-party jurisdiction urged by petitioner here, we think the better approach is to determine what Gibbs did and did not decide, and to identify what we deem are important differences between the jurisdiction sustained in Gibbs and that asserted here.
Gibbs and its lineal ancestor, Osborn, were couched in terms of Art. III's grant of judicial power in "Cases . . . arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and [its] Treaties," since they (and implicitly the cases which linked them) represented inquiries into the scope of Art. III jurisdiction in litigation where the "common nucleus of operative fact" gave rise to non-federal questions or claims between the parties. None of them posed the need for a further inquiry into the underlying statutory grant of federal jurisdiction or a flexible analysis of concepts such as "question," "claim," and "cause of action," because Congress had not addressed itself by statute to this matter. In short, Congress had said nothing about the scope of the word "Cases" in Art. III which would offer guidance on the [427 U.S. 1, 14] kind of elusive question addressed in Osborn and Gibbs: whether and to what extent jurisdiction extended to a parallel state claim against the existing federal defendant.
Thus, it was perfectly consistent with Art. III, and the particular grant of subject-matter jurisdiction upon which the federal claim against the defendant in those cases was grounded, to require that defendant to answer as well to a second claim deriving from the "common nucleus" of fact, though it be of state-law vintage. This would not be an "unfair" use of federal power by the suing party, he already having placed the defendant properly in federal court for a substantial federal cause of action. Judicial economy would also be served because the plaintiff's claims were "such that he would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding . . . ." Gibbs, 383 U.S., at 725 .
The situation with respect to the joining of a new party, however, strikes us as being both factually and legally different from the situation facing the Court in Gibbs and its predecessors. From a purely factual point of view, it is one thing to authorize two parties, already present in federal court by virtue of a case over which the court has jurisdiction, to litigate in addition to their federal claim a state-law claim over which there is no independent basis of federal jurisdiction. But it is quite another thing to permit a plaintiff, who has asserted a claim against one defendant with respect to which there is federal jurisdiction, to join an entirely different defendant on the basis of a state-law claim over which there is no independent basis of federal jurisdiction, simply because his claim against the first defendant and his claim against the second defendant "derive from a common nucleus of operative fact." Ibid. True, the same considerations of judicial economy would be served [427 U.S. 1, 15] insofar as plaintiff's claims "are such that he would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding . . . ." Ibid. But the addition of a completely new party would run counter to the well-established principle that federal courts, as opposed to state trial courts of general jurisdiction, are courts of limited jurisdiction marked out by Congress. We think there is much sense in the observation of Judge Sobeloff, writing for the Court of Appeals in Kenrose Mfg. Co. v. Fred Whitaker Co., 512 F.2d 890, 894 (CA4 1972):
Congress has in specific terms conferred Art. III jurisdiction on the district courts to decide actions brought to redress deprivations of civil rights. Under the opening language of 1343, 9 those courts "shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person . . ." (emphasis added). The civil rights action set out in 1983 10 is, of course, included within the jurisdictional grant of subsection (3) of 1343. Yet petitioner does not, and indeed could not, contest the fact that as to 1983, counties are excluded from the "person[s]" answerable to the plaintiff "in an action at law [or] suit in equity" to redress the enumerated deprivations. 11 Petitioner must necessarily argue that in spite of the language emphasized above Congress left it open for the federal courts to fashion a jurisdictional doctrine under the general language of Art. III enabling them to circumvent this exclusion, as long as the civil rights action and the state-law claim arise from a "common nucleus of operative fact." But the question whether jurisdiction over the instant lawsuit extends not only to a related state-law claim, but to the defendant against whom that claim is made, turns initially, not on the general [427 U.S. 1, 17] contours of the language in Art. III, i. e., "Cases . . . arising under," but upon the deductions which may be drawn from congressional statutes as to whether Congress wanted to grant this sort of jurisdiction to federal courts. Parties such as counties, whom Congress excluded from liability in 1983, and therefore by reference in the grant of jurisdiction under 1343 (3), can argue with a great deal of force that the scope of that "civil action" over which the district courts have been given statutory jurisdiction should not be so broadly read as to bring them back within that power merely because the facts also give rise to an ordinary civil action against them under state law. In short, as against a plaintiff's claim of additional power over a "pendent party," the reach of the statute conferring jurisdiction should be construed in light of the scope of the cause of action as to which federal judicial power has been extended by Congress.
Resolution of a claim of pendent-party jurisdiction, therefore, calls for careful attention to the relevant statutory language. As we have indicated, we think a fair reading of the language used in 1343, together with the scope of 1983, requires a holding that the joinder of a municipal corporation, like the county here, for purposes of asserting a state-law claim not within federal diversity jurisdiction, is without the statutory jurisdiction of the district court. 12 [427 U.S. 1, 18]
There are, of course, many variations in the language which Congress has employed to confer jurisdiction upon the federal courts, and we decide here only the issue of so-called "pendent party" jurisdiction with respect to a claim brought under 1343 (3) and 1983. Other statutory grants and other alignments of parties and claims might call for a different result. When the grant of jurisdiction to a federal court is exclusive, for example, as in the prosecution of tort claims against the United States under 28 U.S.C. 1346, the argument of judicial economy and convenience can be coupled with the additional argument that only in a federal court may all of the claims be tried together. 13 As we indicated at the outset of this opinion, the question of pendent-party jurisdiction is "subtle and complex," and we believe that it would be as unwise as it would be unnecessary to lay down any sweeping pronouncement upon the existence or exercise of such jurisdiction. Two observations suffice for the disposition of the type of case before us. If the new party sought to be joined is not otherwise subject to federal jurisdiction, there is a more serious obstacle to the exercise of pendent jurisdiction than if parties already before the court are required to litigate a state-law claim. Before it can be concluded that such jurisdiction exists, a federal court must satisfy itself not only that Art. III permits it, but that Congress in the statutes conferring jurisdiction has not expressly or by implication negated its existence. [427 U.S. 1, 19]
We conclude that in this case Congress has by implication declined to extend federal jurisdiction over a party such as Spokane County. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is therefore
[ Footnote 2 ] "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."
[ Footnote 3 ] "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:
[ Footnote 4 ] There is no diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. 1332 among the parties here, since all are citizens of the State of Washington.
[ Footnote 5 ] See, e. g., cases cited in Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 713 -714, nn. 29-30 (1973).
[ Footnote 6 ] See, e. g., 3A J. Moore, Federal Practice § 18.07[1.-4] (2d ed. 1974); P. Bator, P. Mishkin, D. Shapiro, & H. Wechsler, Hart and Wechsler's The Federal Courts and the Federal System 921-926 (2d ed. 1973); C. Wright, Law of Federal Courts 19 (2d ed. 1970); Fortune, Pendent Jurisdiction - The Problem of "Pendenting Parties," 34 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 1 (1972); Shakman, The New Pendent Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, 20 Stan. L. Rev. 262 (1968).
[ Footnote 7 ] As one commentator has stated:
[ Footnote 8 ] See Shulman & Jaegerman, Some Jurisdictional Limitations on Federal Procedure, 45 Yale L. J. 393, 413 (1936); 3 J. Moore, Federal Practice § 13.15 (2d ed. 1974); C. Wright, Law of Federal Courts 9 (2d ed. 1970).
[ Footnote 9 ] See n. 3, supra.
[ Footnote 10 ] See n. 2, supra.
[ Footnote 11 ] Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 187 -191 (1961); City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507, 511 -513 (1973).
[ Footnote 12 ] The floor debates on the statute which became 1983, relied upon by our Brother BRENNAN, insofar as any common understanding may be distilled from their diverse strains, indicate a recognition of the authority of United States courts to entertain suits against municipal corporations under their then-existing diversity jurisdiction. It is, of course, a fair inference from this theme that nothing in 1983 or 1343 was intended to disturb such jurisdiction, and it seems scarcely necessary to add that nothing we say in this opinion disturbs it in the slightest. All that we hold is that where the asserted basis of federal jurisdiction over a municipal [427 U.S. 1, 18] corporation is not diversity of citizenship, but is a claim of jurisdiction pendent to a suit brought against a municipal officer within 1343, the refusal of Congress to authorize suits against municipal corporations under the cognate provisions of 1983 is sufficient to defeat the asserted claim of pendent-party jurisdiction.
[ Footnote 13 ] See, e. g., Hipp v. United States, 313 F. Supp. 1152 (EDNY 1970). Contra, Williams v. United States, 405 F.2d 951 (CA9 1969).
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL and MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN join, dissenting.
Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 -726 (1966), held:
Gibbs concerned a state-law claim jurisdictionally pendent to one of federal law, but no reason appears why the identical principles should not equally apply to pendent state-law claims involving the joinder of additional parties. In either case the Art. III question concerns only the subject matter and not the in personam jurisdiction of the federal courts. In either case the question of Art. III power in the federal judiciary to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction concerns whether the claims asserted are such as "would ordinarily be expected to [be tried] in one judicial proceeding," and the question of discretion addresses "considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants." 1
To recognize that the addition of parties under the pendent jurisdiction of the federal courts will sometimes alter the balance of "judicial economy, convenience and fairness," or sometimes threaten to embroil federal courts in the resolution of uncertain questions of state law, and thereby make the exercise of this discretionary jurisdiction inappropriate, is only to speak to the question [427 U.S. 1, 21] of the proper exercise of judicial discretion in the circumstances and does not vitiate the Gibbs analysis or its application to the question of pendent-party jurisdiction. To fail to recognize the applicability of Gibbs to the situation of pendent parties as well as claims would often compel a result aptly described by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit:
The Court today does not disclaim the applicability of Gibbs to the question of federal pendent-party jurisdiction. [427 U.S. 1, 22] Rather, recognizing sub silentio the absurd results it would create by a disclaimer of the possibility of federal pendent-party jurisdiction - whether under the label of "ancillary" jurisdiction or that of "pendent party," see Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 714 -715 (1973) - in a variety of possible contexts under various jurisdictional statutes and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 2 the Court declines "to lay down any sweeping pronouncement upon the existence or exercise of such jurisdiction." Ante, at 18. The Court instead reaches its result - the proclamation of a per se rule forbidding pendent jurisdiction over claims arising under state law against local governmental units when joined with a 1983 claim even where such claims "derive from a common nucleus of operative fact" - by purporting to find that "in this case Congress has by implication" expressed its disapproval of federal pendent-party jurisdiction "over a party such as Spokane County." Ante, at 19. That result is demonstrably untenable.
The Court seeks to justify its per se rule by analysis of the congressional will as expressed in the federal statutes involved - 28 U.S.C. 1343 (3) and 42 U.S.C. 1983. 3 The test the Court announces is "whether by [427 U.S. 1, 23] virtue of the statutory grant of subject-matter jurisdiction, upon which petitioner's principal claim . . . rests, Congress has addressed itself to the party as to whom jurisdiction pendent to the principal claim is sought." Ante, at 16. At one level of analysis, this test is of course meaningless, being capable of application to all cases, because all instances of asserted pendent-party jurisdiction will by definition involve a party as to whom Congress has impliedly "addressed itself" by not expressly conferring subject-matter jurisdiction on the federal courts. But, the Court says, it is drawing "deductions . . . from [the] congressional statutes as to whether Congress wanted to grant this sort of jurisdiction to federal courts," ante, at 17, and it "conclude[s] that in this case Congress has by implication declined." Ante, at 19. It is apparent, however, that analysis of the statutory enactments involved, their legislative history, and the congressional policies embodied therein belies the Court's assertion that its purported test for determining the propriety of pendent-party jurisdiction yields the result reached today.
The purely jurisdictional statute involved in this case, 28 U.S.C. 1343 (3), in no way speaks to the issue of pendent-party jurisdiction in respect to joinder of defendants under pendent state-law claims. On its face that statute speaks only to jurisdiction over civil actions [427 U.S. 1, 24] "authorized by law to be commenced by any person," and plainly does not address the question of what parties shall be joined as defendants. Accordingly, the Court necessarily argues its proposition from "the scope of the cause of action," ante, at 17, created by 1983. But the legislative history of that enactment plainly gives no support to the Court's argument that Congress by implication intended to preclude the exercise of federal jurisdiction over state-law claims against local governmental units where such jurisdiction would otherwise lie under application of standard principles.
Our precedents, Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), and Moor v. County of Alameda, supra, firmly establish that the sole rationale for construing the "persons" susceptible of liability under 1983 as excluding local units of government lies in the legislative history of the so-called Sherman Amendment to the Act of April 20, 1871, 1 of which enacted into law the first version of the present 1983. 4 The Senate approved one version of the Amendment proposed by Senator Sherman which would have expressly provided for local governmental liability, 5 and the House rejected it. 6 The Conference Committee reported another version 7 and the House rejected the Conference Report. 8 Thereafter, the Senate acceded to the House rejection of the Sherman Amendment and both Houses substituted in its place 6 of the 1871 Act, the first version of the present 42 U.S.C. 1986. 9 The rejection of the Sherman Amendment, and nothing more, has been the basis upon which we have [427 U.S. 1, 25] construed 1983 liability as not encompassing local governmental units. Monroe v. Pape, supra, at 188-191; Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S., at 707 -710. But as those cases recognize, the reason for the House rejection of the Amendment, as stated by Mr. Poland, House Manager of the Conference Committee Report, was that "the House had solemnly decided that in their judgment Congress had no constitutional power to impose any obligation upon county and town organizations, the mere instrumentality for the administration of State law." Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 804 (1871) (emphasis supplied). See Monroe v. Pape, supra, at 190; Moor v. County of Alameda, supra, at 708. This judgment of the House respecting its lack of constitutional power to "impose . . . liability" "as a matter of federal law," id., at 710 n. 27 (emphasis in original), on local governmental units pervades the legislative history of the aborted Sherman Amendment. 10
In marked contrast in the legislative history of that proposed Amendment, however, is the absence of expression of hostility to federal judicial forums entertaining claims arising under state law. The opponents of the Sherman Amendment were, as the legislative history reveals, fully aware of several existing state laws respecting local government tort liability. 11 Moreover, the opponents of the proposed Amendment, who consistently objected to the imposition of liability upon local governmental units as a matter of substantive federal law, also consistently expressed their views respecting the entertainment [427 U.S. 1, 26] in federal forums of state-law claims against local governmental units.
Today's result not only is insupportable under the Court's purported test for ascertaining the propriety of pendent-party jurisdiction in the federal courts, but, [427 U.S. 1, 31] more importantly, it wholly disregards the congressional intent and policy in enacting the various Civil Rights Acts including the present 1983. For, to an extent perhaps unparalleled in our history, the post-Civil War Civil Rights Acts had as a focal point the provision that claims brought under those Acts should be entertained in federal judicial forums. The Civil Rights Acts were enacted in an era of "national feeling born of the Civil War. Nationalism was triumphant; in national administration was sought its vindication." F. Frankfurter & J. Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court 64 (1928). Contemporaneous with the passage of the Civil Rights Acts was the Act of March 3, 1875, which, in conferring general federal-question jurisdiction upon the federal courts, thereby made those courts "the primary and powerful reliances for vindicating every right given by the Constitution, the laws, and treaties of the United States." Id., at 65; Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 247 (1967). "In thus expanding federal judicial power, Congress imposed the duty upon all levels of the federal judiciary to give due respect to a suitor's choice of a federal forum for the hearing and decision of his federal constitutional claims." Id., at 248.
Although there has been disagreement among us upon the question of the precise scope of 1983, none of us has heretofore denied "the fact that a powerful impulse behind the creation of [ 1983] was the purpose that it be available in, and be shaped through, original federal tribunals," or has forgotten "how important providing a federal trial court was among the several purposes of the Ku Klux Act." Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S., at 252 , 251 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting) (emphasis supplied). 13
[ Footnote 1 ] This has been the holding of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a series of opinions by Judge Friendly. Almenares v. Wyman, 453 F.2d 1075 (1971); Leather's Best, Inc. v. S. S. Mormaclynx, 451 F.2d 800 (1971); Astor-Honor, Inc. v. Grosset & Dunlap, Inc., 441 F.2d 627 (1971); United States v. Heyward-Robinson Co., 430 F.2d 1077 (1970) (concurring opinion). See also 7 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 1659 (1972); Fortune, Pendent Jurisdiction - The Problem of "Pendenting Parties," 34 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 1 (1972); Note, UMW v. Gibbs and Pendent Jurisdiction, 81 Harv. L. Rev. 657 (1968); Comment, Pendent and Ancillary Jurisdiction: Towards a Synthesis of Two Doctrines, 22 U. C. L. A. L. Rev. 1263 (1975).
[ Footnote 2 ] As, for example, where a defendant seeks to join under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 14 a third-party defendant over whom there is no independent subject-matter jurisdiction. The analysis in Gibbs placed emphasis on the fact that the Federal Rules "embody `the whole tendency of our decisions . . . to require a plaintiff to try his . . . whole case at one time,' . . . and to that extent emphasize the basis of pendent jurisdiction." 383 U.S., at 725 n. 13. The Federal Rules directly encourage the joinder of parties as well as claims. E. g., Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 13 (h), 14, 19, 20, 22, 24, and 25.
[ Footnote 3 ] I agree, of course, that Congress may preclude the exercise of pendent-party jurisdiction as to particular parties or particular types of claims and that congressional determination would be binding on this Court. [427 U.S. 1, 23] It is worthy of note, however, that Congress has not in the past expressed disapproval of our developments in the law of pendent and ancillary jurisdiction, and "[t]he only congressional enactments on this subject have, in fact, extended rather than restricted ancillary jurisdiction in a number of situations." Baker, Toward a Relaxed View of Federal Ancillary and Pendent Jurisdiction, 33 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 759, 763 (1972).
[ Footnote 4 ] Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., App. 335 (1871).
[ Footnote 5 ] Id., at 704-705.
[ Footnote 6 ] Id., at 725.
[ Footnote 7 ] Id., at 749.
[ Footnote 8 ] Id., at 800-801.
[ Footnote 9 ] Id., at 804.
[ Footnote 10 ] Id., at 788 (remarks of Mr. Kerr); id., at 791 (remarks of Mr. Willard); id., at 793 (remarks of Mr. Poland); id., at 795 (remarks of Mr. Blair); ibid. (remarks of Mr. Burchard); id., at 799 (remarks of Mr. Farnsworth).
[ Footnote 11 ] Id., at 792 (Mass.); id., at 799 (N. Y.); id., at 800 (Pa.); ibid. (Ky.).
[ Footnote 12 ] I can find only one expression of hostility to the federal courts - [427 U.S. 1, 30] and that ambiguous in its context - in the entire legislative history of the proposed Sherman Amendment:
[ Footnote 14 ] E. g.:
[ Footnote 15 ] See Wechsler, Federal Jurisdiction and the Revision of the Judicial Code, 13 Law & Contemp. Prob. 216, 230 (1948):
[ Footnote 16 ] "There is a vice in federal adjudication on state grounds inhering in the fact that federal courts are not the authorized expositors of state law; there is no mechanism by which their errors in such matters can be corrected on appeal by state courts. There is a vice also, as we have recognized by liberal rules of joinder, in forcing plaintiffs who have multiple bases of action to pursue their remedies in pieces and in different courts. It is, however, possible to find a balance for these evils. The balance is achieved if jurisdiction is extended generally to claims that under joinder rules may be asserted in a single action, subject to discretion in the court to dismiss without prejudice claims resting upon state law. When uncertainty obtains as to prevailing local doctrine, when that doctrine is enmeshed in clashing policies that render any legal formulation an intrinsically changing concept, the discretion would [427 U.S. 1, 36] be exercised to limit federal adjudication to the federal grounds. When, on the contrary, the issue turns on principles well settled by the state, the federal courts can safely undertake the full adjudication of the case." Id., at 232-233 (Footnotes omitted).
[ Footnote 17 ] The Court today appears to decide sub silentio a hitherto unresolved question by implying that 1983 claims are not claims exclusively cognizable in federal court but may also be entertained by state courts. See ante, at 15, 18. This is a conclusion with which I agree. [427 U.S. 1, 38]