Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-806_2dp3.pdf
Page Number: 23.0

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

19 

Opinion of the Court 

unambiguously secure.

As explained in Part III–A, supra, the FNHRA details ad-
ministrative  processes  concerning  inspection  of  covered
nursing facilities and accountability for noncompliant facil-
ities.  But the statute lacks any indicia of congressional in-
tent to preclude §1983 enforcement, such as an express pri-
vate  judicial  right  of  action  or  any  other  provision  that
might signify that intent.  See, e.g., id., at 121 (“[T]he exist-
ence of a more restrictive private remedy [in the statute it-
self] for statutory violations has been the dividing line be-
tween  those  cases  in  which  we  have  held  that  an  action 
would lie under §1983 and those in which we have held that 
it would not”).  Nor has HHC otherwise demonstrated that 
enforcement  via  §1983  would  thwart  the  operation  of  the
administrative remedial scheme in any respect. 

is 

that 

incompatible  with 

HHC’s argument that we need look no further than the
detail of the FNHRA’s enforcement mechanisms to find con-
clusive evidence of implicit preclusion is unpersuasive.  Im-
plicit  preclusion  is  shown  by  a  “ ‘comprehensive  enforce-
ment  scheme 
individual 
enforcement  under  §1983.’ ”    Fitzgerald,  555  U. S.,  at  252 
(emphasis added).  HHC’s single-minded focus on compre-
hensiveness mistakes the shadow for the substance, and it 
disregards  the  import  of  these  FNHRA  provisions’  unam-
biguous conferral of rights.  The attendant presumption is 
that §1983 can play its textually prescribed role as a vehicle 
for enforcing those rights, even alongside a detailed enforce-
ment  regime  that  also  protects  those  interests,  so  long  as 
§1983 enforcement is not “ ‘incompatible’ ” with Congress’s
handiwork.  Rancho  Palos  Verdes,  544  U. S.,  at  120,  122; 
Blessing  v.  Freestone,  520  U. S.  329,  347–348  (1997)  (col-
lecting cases).

To be clear, a defendant can discharge its burden of show-
ing that the presumption is rebutted by pointing to a com-
prehensive scheme.  Middlesex County Sewerage Authority 
v.  National  Sea  Clammers  Assn.,  453  U. S.  1,  20  (1981)