Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-806_2dp3.pdf
Page Number: 69

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

1 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

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  ALITO,  with  whom  JUSTICE  THOMAS  joins,  dis-

senting. 

I  agree  with  the  Court’s  understanding  of  the  high  bar 
required to bring an action under 42 U. S. C. §1983 for the
violation of a federal statute, but I disagree with how that
standard applies in this case.  In my view, while respondent 
has established that the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act 
(FNHRA) creates individual rights, petitioners have estab-
lished  that  relief  for  the  violation  of  those  rights  under
§1983 is foreclosed by the remedial scheme in the Act. 

I 
The majority and JUSTICE BARRETT correctly identify the
plaintiff ’s burden under §1983: a statute “must unambigu-
ously  confer  individual  federal  rights”  to  create  “rights”
within the meaning of §1983, and “Gonzaga sets forth our 
established  method  for  ascertaining  unambiguous  confer-
ral.”  Ante,  at  11,  14  (majority  opinion);  see  ante,  at  1–2 
(BARRETT, J., concurring); Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U. S. 
273 (2002).  In other words, “if Congress wishes to create
new rights enforceable under §1983, it must do so in clear 
and unambiguous terms.”  Id., at 290.  Because the stand-
ard demands “no less and no more than what is required for