Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 448 U.S. 1, 100 S.Ct. 2502, 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980). In order to have a viable cause of action under § 1983 based on the violation of a federal statute, however, a plaintiff must establish that the statute allegedly violated gives the plaintiff enforceable rights. Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 283, 122 S.Ct. 2268, 2275, 153 L.Ed.2d 309 (2002) (rejecting the notion that case law permits “anything short of an unambiguously conferred right to support a cause of action ' brought under § 1983”). We emphasize, as did the Court in Gonzaga, that in cases brought to enforce legislation enacted pursuant to Congress’ spending power, such as the Adoption Act, Congress must “speak with a clear voice” and manifest an “unambiguous” intent to co 479 U.S. 418, 107 S.Ct. 766, 93 L.Ed.2d 781 (1987) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court has set forth three 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing provisions of the fair housing act that forbid false statements that housing is unavailable to a person because of his race (B) holding that in a  1983 action issue of probable cause is for the jury (C) holding that the brooke amendment to the housing act provided a cause of action under  1983 (D) holding that administrative scheme in brooke amendment to housing act does not provide exclusive remedy precluding claim under 42 usc  1983 because court was unconvinced  that defendant has overcome its burden of showing that the remedial devices provided in the housing act are sufficiently comprehensive  to demonstrate congressional intent to preclude the remedy of suits under  1983  quoting middlesex county sewerage auth v national sea clammers assn 453 us 1 20 101 sct 2615 2626 69 led2d 435 1981 (E) recognizing the cause of action
Output (English): holding that in a  1983 action issue of probable cause is for the jury