Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-806_2dp3.pdf
Page Number: 25

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

21 

Opinion of the Court 

what  it  lacks—a  private  judicial  right  of  action,  a  private
federal administrative remedy, or any “ ‘carefu[l]’ ” congres-
sional  “ ‘tailor[ing],’ ”  Fitzgerald,  555  U. S.,  at  255,  that 
§1983  actions  would  “distort,”  Rancho  Palos  Verdes,  544 
U. S., at 127.  HHC seems to think it enough to show that 
Congress was not slipshod in crafting the remedial scheme.
But in a world where the FNHRA’s remedial scheme could 
“complement,” not “supplant, §1983,” id., at 122, HHC must 
demonstrate more than that. 

One  last  rebuttal  argument  warrants  addressing.    The 
United  States  says  that,  because  private  entities  owned 
most nursing homes when the FNHRA was enacted in 1987
(as  they  do  now),  the  FNHRA  is  a  rare  bird  for  implicit-
preclusion  purposes.  In  the  United  States’  view,  because 
Congress knew that most nursing homes could not be sub-
ject  to  suit  under  §1983  anyway,  see,  e.g.,  Polk  County  v. 
Dodson, 454 U. S. 312, 317–319 (1981), the FNHRA’s reme-
dial scheme “necessarily reflects Congress’s judgment that
these  administrative  enforcement  mechanisms  appropri-
ately protect the rights the statute confers,” Brief for United
States as Amicus Curiae 31. 

This argument is unavailing.  The implicit-preclusion in-
quiry looks to “the statute creating the right” and any “ ‘com-
prehensive enforcement scheme’ ” Congress has created in
the statute “ ‘that is incompatible with individual enforce-
ment under §1983.’ ”  Rancho Palos Verdes, 544 U. S., at 120 
(emphasis added).  It does not invite speculation about os-
tensible marketplace realities that appear nowhere in the 
statute’s  text  or  relevant  context.    The  relevant  FNHRA 
provisions  speak  in  neutral  terms  that  do  not  distinguish 
between  private  and  public  nursing  homes.    And,  regard-
less,  the  question  remains  whether  something  in  the
FNHRA has foreclosed §1983’s “genera[l]” availability as “a 
remedy for the vindication of rights secured by federal stat-
utes.”  Gonzaga,  536  U. S.,  at  284.  We  see  no  such  sign,