Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-806_2dp3.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

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

1 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

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 GORSUCH, concurring. 
  Section 1983 permits individuals to sue to vindicate their 
“rights  . . .  secured  by  . . .  la[w].”    Rev.  Stat.  §1979,  42 
U. S. C. §1983.  I agree with the Court’s disposition of the 
two  questions  we  took  this  case  to  decide  and  in  arriving 
there largely track JUSTICE BARRETT’s reasoning.  First, the 
Federal Nursing Home Reform Act qualifies as a “law” for 
purposes  of  §1983.    Post,  at  1  (BARRETT,  J.,  concurring).  
Second, the text of the Act’s operative provisions refers to 
individual “rights.”  Post, at 2–4 (same).  But, to my mind, 
there are other issues lurking here that petitioners failed to 
develop fully—whether legal rights provided for in spend-
ing power legislation like the Act are “secured” as against 
States  in  particular  and  whether  they  may  be  so  secured 
consistent  with  the  Constitution’s  anti-commandeering 
principle.    See,  e.g.,  National  Federation  of  Independent 
Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. 519, 575–578 (2012); Mur-
phy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 584 U. S. ___, ___–
___ (2018) (slip op., at 14–18).  As I see it, those are ques-
tions for another day.