Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-806_2dp3.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

18 

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

critical question’ ” as “ ‘whether Congress meant [the stat-
ute’s remedial scheme] to coexist with . . . a §1983 action’ ” 
(quoting Rancho Palos Verdes, 544 U. S., at 120–121)). 

Our precedents make clear that the sine qua non of a find-
ing that Congress implicitly intended to preclude a private
right of action under §1983 is incompatibility between en-
forcement  under  §1983  and  the  enforcement  scheme  that 
Congress has enacted.  555 U. S., at 252–254.  We have used 
many terms and concepts to describe the necessary discord-
ance between §1983 and a rights-conferring statute’s reme-
dial 
“ ‘inconsistent,’ ”  and 
“thwar[t]” are examples.  Id., at 252–255.  In all events, the 
question is whether the design of the enforcement scheme 
in the rights-conferring statute is inconsistent with enforce-
ment under §1983, such that a court must infer that “Con-
gress did not intend” to make available the “[§1983] remedy 
for  [these]  newly  created  right[s].”  Rancho  Palos  Verdes, 
544 U. S., at 120; see also Fitzgerald, 555 U. S., at 252. 

“ ‘incompatible,’ ” 

scheme: 

Put  another  way,  the  inquiry  boils  down  to  what  Con-
gress intended, as divined from text and context.  The ap-
plication of the traditional tools of statutory construction to
a statute’s remedial scheme may reveal no incompatibility 
between the enforcement scheme that Congress crafted in
the rights-conferring statute and enforcement under §1983,
or it may uncover sufficient incompatibility to make mani-
fest Congress’s intent to preclude §1983 actions.  See, e.g., 
id., at 253 (explaining a past implicit-preclusion case on the
ground  that  permitting  §1983  claims  there  would  have
“thwarted  Congress’  intent”);  Rancho  Palos  Verdes,  544 
U. S., at 127 (§1983’s operation would have “distort[ed]” the
pertinent other statute’s remedial scheme). 

2 
We discern no incompatibility between the FNHRA’s re-
medial scheme and §1983 enforcement of the rights that the 
unnecessary-restraint  and  predischarge-notice  provisions