Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1023_m64o.pdf
Page Number: 37.0

2  MAINE COMMUNITY HEALTH OPTIONS v. UNITED STATES 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

right of action under 42 U. S. C. §1981, we wrote the follow-
ing about that decision: 

“That  was  during  a  period  when  the  Court  often  ‘as-
sumed it to be a proper judicial function to provide such
remedies as are necessary to make effective a statute’s 
purpose.’  Ziglar  v.  Abbasi,  582  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2017) 
(slip  op.,  at  8)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).
With  the  passage  of  time,  of  course,  we  have  come  to 
appreciate  that,  ‘[l]ike  substantive  federal  law  itself, 
private rights of action to enforce federal law must be 
created by Congress’ and ‘[r]aising up causes of action
where a statute has not created them may be a proper 
function for common-law courts, but not for federal tri-
bunals.’  Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U. S. 275, 286–287 
(2001) (internal quotation marks omitted).” 

A month before that, in Hernández v. Mesa, 589 U. S. ___ 
(2020), we made the same point and accordingly refused to 
infer a cause of action under the Fourth Amendment for an 
allegedly  unjustified  cross-border  shooting.  We  reasoned 
that “a lawmaking body that enacts a provision that creates 
a right . . . may not wish to pursue the provision’s purpose
to the extent of authorizing private suits for damages.”  Id., 
at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  5).  Other  recent  opinions  are  similar. 
See, e.g., Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U. S. ___, ___–___, ___ (2017) 
(slip op., at 9–12, 23); Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 584 U. S. 
___, ___–___ (2018) (slip op., at 18–19); id., at ___ (THOMAS, 
J., concurring) (slip op., at 1); id., at ___, ___–___ (ALITO, J., 
concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (slip op., at
1, 3–4); id., at ___ (GORSUCH, J., concurring in part and con-
curring in judgment) (slip op., at 1). 

Today, however, the Court infers a private right of action
that has the effect of providing a massive bailout for insur-
ance companies that took a calculated risk and lost.  These 
companies  chose  to  participate  in  an  Affordable  Care  Act 
program that they thought would be profitable.  I assume