Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-806_2dp3.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2022 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF MARION 
COUNTY ET AL. v. TALEVSKI, AS PERSONAL 
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF TALEVSKI 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT 

No. 21–806.  Argued November 8, 2022—Decided June 8, 2023 

After Gorgi Talevski’s move to a nursing home in 2016 proved problem-
atic, Talevski (through his wife Ivanka) brought an action under 42 U. 
S. C. §1983 against a county-owned nursing home and its agents (col-
lectively,  HHC),  claiming  that  HHC’s  treatment  of  Talevski  violated 
rights guaranteed him under the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act 
(FNHRA).  The  District  Court  granted  HHC’s  subsequent  motion  to 
dismiss  Talevski’s  complaint,  reasoning  that  no  plaintiff  can  enforce 
provisions  of  the  FNHRA  via  §1983.    The  Seventh  Circuit  reversed, 
concluding  that  the  rights  referred  to  in  two  FNHRA  provisions  in-
voked by Talevski—the right to be free from unnecessary chemical re-
straints, see §1396r(c)(1)(A)(ii), and rights to be discharged or trans-
ferred  only  when  certain  preconditions  are  met,  see  §1396r(c)— 
“unambiguously  confer  individually  enforceable  rights  on  nursing-
home  residents,”  making  those  rights  presumptively  enforceable  via 
§1983.  6 F. 4th 713, 720.  The Seventh Circuit further found nothing 
in the FNHRA to indicate congressional intent to foreclose §1983 en-
forcement. 

Held: The FNHRA provisions at issue unambiguously create §1983-en-
forceable  rights,  and  the  Court  discerns  no  incompatibility  between 
private enforcement under §1983 and the remedial scheme that Con-
gress devised.  Pp. 5–23.

(a) Section 1983 has, since the 1870s, provided an express cause of 
action to any person deprived (by someone acting under color of state
law)  of  “any  rights  . . .  secured  by  the  Constitution  and  laws.”    The 
Court has long refused to read §1983’s unmodified term “laws” to mean