Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-806_2dp3.pdf
Page Number: 37.0

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

5 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

agencies “regularly us[e] conditions to direct state and local
governments in their regulatory and spending policies.”  P. 
Hamburger,  Purchasing  Submission  139  (2021)  (Ham-
burger).  As a result, “the priorities and programs of state
and  local  governments  have  increasingly  come  to  reflect 
federal decisions,” to the point that the States have virtu-
ally  become  “disaggregated  sites  of  national  governance, 
not  separate  sovereigns.”  Id.,  at  141  (internal  quotation 
marks  omitted).  Given  the  profound  consequences  of
spending  conditions  for  the  Nation’s  governance  and  the 
fundamental shift that they have wrought in our federalist
system, a sound understanding of their constitutional basis
and permissible legal effects is essential. 

II 

This case presents one aspect of that question: whether 
spending  conditions  that  impose  obligations  on  States  for 
the  benefit of  third  parties  may  be  enforced  under  §1983. 
That statute provides a cause of action against any “person
who, under color” of state law, deprives the plaintiff “of any 
rights,  privileges,  or  immunities  secured  by  the  Constitu-
tion and laws.”  Accordingly, for the violation of a federal 
statutory provision to give rise to a cognizable §1983 claim,
the  provision  must  confer  “rights,  privileges,  or  immuni-
ties”  that  are  “secured  by  . . .  la[w].”  This  Court’s  cases 
make  clear  that  a  right  is  secured  by  law  in  the  relevant
sense if, and only if, federal law imposes a binding obliga-
tion on the defendant to respect a corresponding substan-
tive right that belongs to the plaintiff.3 
—————— 
billion or 37.5% of state and local government expenditures.”  Ibid. (foot-
notes omitted). 

3 See  Golden  State  Transit  Corp.  v.  Los  Angeles,  493  U. S.  103,  106 
(1989) (“[T]he plaintiff must assert the violation of a federal right. . . .  In 
deciding whether a federal right has been violated, we have considered
whether the provision in question creates obligations binding on the gov-
ernmental unit” and “whether the provision in question was intended to 
benefit the putative plaintiff ” (alteration and internal quotation marks