relationship and because the Repeal Act could not be justified by a significant public purpose. Id. at 1021-22. 5 As previously noted, TRA has asserted on appeal that the CZMA by its own terms does not apply to TRA because the Agreement granted TRA a vested right in development prior to the effective date of the CZMA. The district court interpreted this claim as a writ of review challenge to the CZMC's decision to deny TRA a CZMA permit. While we hold that the district court does not have original jurisdiction over writs of review, on remand the district court should determine whether it would be appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any writ of review claims fairly made by TRA. See City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, S. Ct. , 1997 WL 76450, *7 (1997)
holding that the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related statelaw claims once it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction holding that the court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute holding that district court had supplemental jurisdiction over claims challenging administrative decision once case was properly removed based on original jurisdiction arising from constitutional claims holding that district court properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction over thirdparty claims after main copyright action had been settled holding that the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute