Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-806_2dp3.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

4 

HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF MARION 
CTY. v. TALEVSKI 
Syllabus 

plicitly, by creating “a ‘comprehensive enforcement scheme that is in-
compatible with individual enforcement under §1983,” ibid.  Here, the 
Court  finds  evidence  of  neither.    The  FNHRA  establishes  a  detailed 
administrative  scheme  for  inspections  of  nursing  facilities,  see
§1396r(g),  and  authorizes  governments  to  sanction  and  correct  non-
compliant facilities, see §1396r(h).  But the statute lacks any indicia of 
congressional  intent  to  preclude  §1983  enforcement,  such  as  an  ex-
press private judicial right of action or any other provision that might
signify that intent.  HHC focuses on comprehensiveness of FNHRA’s 
enforcement mechanisms, but implicit preclusion is shown only by a
“ ‘comprehensive  enforcement  scheme  that  is  incompatible  with  indi-
vidual  enforcement  under  §1983.’ ”    Fitzgerald  v.  Barnstable  School 
Comm., 555 U. S. 246, 252 (emphasis added).  The Court’s prior cases 
finding  implicit  preclusion  involved  statutes  where  private  enforce-
ment under §1983 would have thwarted Congress’s scheme by circum-
venting the statutes’ presuit procedures, or by giving plaintiffs access
to  tangible  benefits  otherwise  unavailable  under  the  statutes  con-
strued.  HHC  has  identified  no  equivalent  sign  of  incompatibility  in
the  FNHRA,  which  lacks  a  private  judicial  right  of  action,  a  private 
federal  administrative  remedy,  or  any  “carefu[l]”  congressional  “tai-
lor[ing],” Fitzgerald, 555 U. S., at 255, that §1983 actions would “dis-
tort,”  Rancho Palos Verdes, 544 U. S., at 127.  Finally, the Court re-
jects any speculation that because Congress knew most nursing homes 
are private entities not subject to suit under §1983, the FNHRA’s re-
medial  scheme  “necessarily  reflects  Congress’s  judgment  that  these 
administrative  enforcement  mechanisms  appropriately  protect  the 
rights the statute confers,” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 
31.  The  focus  in  the  implicit-preclusion  inquiry  remains  whether 
something in the FNHRA has foreclosed §1983’s “genera[l]” availabil-
ity as “a remedy for the vindication of rights secured by federal stat-
utes.” Gonzaga, 536 U. S., at 284.  The Court sees no such sign, much 
less  a  license  for  the  Court  to  construct  and  impute  to  Congress  an
intent that the FNHRA does not embody.  Pp. 17–23. 

6 F. 4th 713, affirmed.  

JACKSON,  J.,  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  in  which  ROBERTS, 
C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., 
joined.  GORSUCH, J., filed a concurring opinion.  BARRETT, J., filed a con-
curring opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined.  THOMAS, J., filed a dis-
senting opinion.  ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, 
J., joined.