Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-806_2dp3.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

16 

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

the  safety  or  health  of  other  individuals  would  be  endan-
gered.  §1396r(c)(2)(A) (emphasis added).  The exceptions to
the advance-notice requirement, too, turn (inter alia) on the
“resident’s health,” the “resident’s urgent medical needs,” or
the existence of threats to the safety or health of other indi-
viduals  in  the  nursing  home.  §§1396r(c)(2)(B)(ii)(I)–(III)
(emphasis added).

To be sure, these two provisions also establish who it is 
that must respect and honor these statutory rights; namely,
the Medicaid-participant nursing homes in which these res-
idents  reside.    See,  e.g.,  §§1396a(a)(28),  1396r(c)(1)(A),
1396r(c)(2)(A);  see  also  §§1396r(c)(1)(B)(i)–(ii)  (requiring
nursing  homes  to  inform  nursing-home  residents  of  their
rights, orally and in writing, upon admission and upon re-
quest).  But that is not a material diversion from the neces-
sary  focus  on  the  nursing-home  residents,  contrary  to 
HHC’s representations.  Indeed, it would be strange to hold
that a statutory provision fails to secure rights simply be-
cause it considers, alongside the rights bearers, the actors
that  might  threaten  those  rights  (and  we  have  never  so
held).12 

The  unnecessary-restraint  and  predischarge-notice  pro-
visions thus stand in stark contrast to the statutory provi-
sions  that  failed  Gonzaga’s  test  in  Gonzaga  itself.  Those 
provisions lacked “rights-creating language,” primarily di-
rected  the  Federal  Government’s  “distribution  of  public 
funds,” and had “an aggregate, not individual, focus.”  536 
U. S., at 290.  The opposite is true here.  The unnecessary-
restraint  and  predischarge-notice  provisions  use  clear 
“rights-creating language,” speak “ ‘in terms of the persons 
benefited,’ ” and have an “ ‘unmistakable focus on the bene-
fited class.’ ”  Id., at 284, 287, 290 (emphasis deleted).  Thus, 
they  satisfy  Gonzaga’s  stringent  standard,  and  the  rights 

—————— 

12 The Fourteenth Amendment hardly fails to secure §1983-enforceable 

rights because it directs state actors not to deny equal protection.