Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-806_2dp3.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to  notify  the  Reporter  of 
Decisions,  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  Washington,  D. C.  20543, 
pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 21–806 
_________________ 

HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF MARION 
COUNTY, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. IVANKA TALEVSKI, 
AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE 
OF GORGI TALEVSKI, DECEASED 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT 

[June 8, 2023]

 JUSTICE JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court. 
The Federal Nursing Home Reform Act (FNHRA or Act)
ensures that nursing homes that receive Medicaid funding
respect and protect their residents’ health, safety, and dig-
nity.  Provisions of the FNHRA refer to rights of nursing-
home  residents  to  be  free  from  unnecessary  physical  or 
chemical restraints and to be discharged or transferred only 
when certain preconditions are satisfied.  This case is about 
these particular provisions and whether nursing-home res-
idents can seek to vindicate those FNHRA rights in court. 
Respondent Ivanka Talevski maintains that she can en-
force  the  rights  these  particular  FNHRA  provisions  de-
scribe via 42 U. S. C. §1983, which, since the 1870s, has pro-
vided an express cause of action to any person deprived (by
someone acting under color of state law) of “any rights . . . 
secured  by  the  Constitution  and  laws.”    Petitioners  insist 
that respondent is wrong about being able to rely on §1983
in  this  context,  for  two  independent  reasons.    First,  peti-
tioners urge us to discard our longstanding recognition that