Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-806_2dp3.pdf
Page Number: 31.0

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

3 

BARRETT, J., concurring 

sive enforcement scheme that is incompatible with individ-
ual  enforcement  under  §1983.’ ”    Gonzaga,  536  U. S.,  at 
284–285, n. 4. 

As  the  Court  notes,  the  presence of  an  “express  private 
judicial right of action” typically demonstrates that a §1983
suit  is  not  also  available.    Ante,  at  19;  see  Rancho  Palos 
Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U. S. 113, 121 (2005) (express cause
of action “is ordinarily an indication that Congress did not 
intend  to  leave  open  a  more  expansive  remedy  under
§1983”).  When the statutory cause of action restricts avail-
able  remedies  or  imposes  procedural  hurdles  to  obtaining 
relief,  the  inference  is  even  stronger.    See  Fitzgerald  v. 
Barnstable School Comm., 555 U. S. 246, 254 (2009) (con-
sidering  whether  a  §1983  suit  “would  have  circumvented 
these procedures and given plaintiffs access to tangible ben-
efits—such  as  damages,  attorney’s  fees,  and  costs—that
were  unavailable  under  the  statut[e]”);  Rancho  Palos 
Verdes, 544 U. S., at 122–123 (similar). 

But an actual clash—one private judicial remedy against 
another,  more  expansive  remedy—is  not  required  to  find
that a statute forecloses recourse to §1983.  Our cases have 
looked  to  a  wide  range  of  contextual  clues,  like  “enforce-
ment provisions” that “confe[r] authority to sue . . . on gov-
ernment officials,” Sea Clammers, 453 U. S., at 13, 20, and 
any  “administrative  remedies”  that  the  statute  offers, 
Smith  v.  Robinson,  468  U. S.  992,  1012  (1984).    We  have 
noted the relevance of a centralized review mechanism that 
would  be  undermined  by  piecemeal  litigation.  Gonzaga, 
536 U. S., at 289–290 (statute directed the Secretary of Ed-
ucation to establish a review board to investigate and adju-
dicate alleged violations).  And we have regularly taken ac-
count  of  the  overall  comprehensiveness  of  the  statute’s 
enforcement scheme.  The more comprehensive the scheme,
the less likely that it leaves the door open for §1983 suits. 
Sea Clammers, 453 U. S., at 20 (“When the remedial devices
provided in a particular Act are sufficiently comprehensive,