Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-806_2dp3.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

14 

HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF MARION 
CTY. v. TALEVSKI 
Opinion of the Court 

Gonzaga sets forth our established method for ascertain-
ing  unambiguous  conferral.  Courts  must  employ  tradi-
tional tools of statutory construction to assess whether Con-
gress  has  “unambiguously  conferred”  “individual  rights
upon a class of beneficiaries” to which the plaintiff belongs. 
Id.,  at  283,  285–286;  see  also  Rancho  Palos  Verdes  v. 
Abrams, 544 U. S. 113, 120 (2005).  Notably, it must be de-
termined that “Congress intended to create a federal right” 
for  the  identified  class,  not  merely  that  the  plaintiffs  fall 
“within the general zone of interest that the statute is in-
tended  to  protect.”  Gonzaga,  536  U. S.,  at  283  (emphasis 
deleted).  This  paradigm  respects  Congress’s  primacy  in
this  arena  and  thus  vindicates  the  separation  of  powers. 
Id., at 286. 

We have held that the Gonzaga test is satisfied where the 
provision in question is “ ‘phrased in terms of the persons
benefited’ ”  and  contains  “rights-creating,”  individual-cen-
tric language with an “ ‘unmistakable focus on the benefited 
class.’ ”  Id., at 284, 287 (emphasis deleted).  Conversely, we
have rejected §1983 enforceability where the statutory pro-
vision  “contain[ed]  no  rights-creating  language”;  had  “an 
aggregate, not individual, focus”; and “serve[d] primarily to 
direct  the  [Federal  Government’s]  distribution  of  public 
funds.”  Id., at 290. 

If  a  statutory  provision  surmounts  this  significant  hur-
dle, it “secure[s]” §1983-enforceable rights, consistent with
§1983’s text.  And because “§1983 generally supplies a rem-
edy  for  the  vindication  of  rights  secured  by  federal  stat-
utes,” rights so secured are deemed “presumptively enforce-
able” under §1983.  Gonzaga, 536 U. S., at 284. 

2 
The  unnecessary-restraint  and  predischarge-notice  pro-
visions meet this test.  To start, we note that both reside in 
42 U. S. C. §1396r(c), which expressly concerns “[r]equire-
ments relating to residents’ rights.”  Ibid. (emphasis added;