Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-806_2dp3.pdf
Page Number: 27

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

23 

Opinion of the Court 

the meaning of §1983.”  Tr. of Oral Arg. 39.  That is an ac-
curate statement of the key issue in this case.  Section 1983 
itself provides the answer.  By its terms, §1983 is available 
to enforce every right that Congress validly and unambigu-
ously creates; we will not impose a categorical font-of-power 
condition that the Reconstruction Congress did not.  And, 
here, the test that our precedents establish leads inexorably 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  FNHRA  secures  the  particular
rights  that  Talevski  invokes,  without  otherwise  signaling
that enforcement of those rights via §1983 is precluded as 
incompatible with the FNHRA’s remedial scheme.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Ap-

peals. 

It is so ordered.