Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-806_2dp3.pdf
Page Number: 71

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

3 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

down to what Congress intended, as divined from text and 
context.”  Ante, at 18 (majority opinion).  Notably, we have
explicitly held that this standard does not demand anything 
close to the level of incompatibility required to trigger im-
plied repeal.  See Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U. S. 
113, 120, and n. 2 (2005); see ante, at 2 (opinion of BARRETT, 
J.).  Instead, the question is simply “whether the rights cre-
ated by a later statute ‘may be asserted within the remedial 
framework’ of the earlier one.”  Rancho Palos Verdes, 544 
U. S.,  at  120,  n. 2;  see  Great  American  Fed.  Sav.  &  Loan 
Assn. v. Novotny, 442 U. S. 366, 375–378 (1979).  As the ma-
jority  explains,  §1983 does  not  apply  where  Congress  has 
created an individual right but also “simultaneously given
good reason (detectable with ordinary interpretive tools) to 
conclude that the §1983 remedy is not available.”  Ante, at 
17, n. 13; see, e.g., Armstrong, 575 U. S., at 328 (presump-
tion of equitable remedies rebutted by administrative rem-
edies and statutory requirements). 

Finally, I agree that there is no bright-line rule for when
a statute evidences an intent to preclude §1983 relief.  See 
Rancho Palos Verdes, 544 U. S., at 122; ante, at 19–21 (ma-
jority opinion); ante, at 3–4 (opinion of BARRETT, J.).  Courts 
should consider a “wide range of contextual clues, like ‘en-
forcement provisions’ ” that government officials can invoke 
and “any ‘administrative remedies that the statute offers.’ ” 
Ante, at 3 (opinion of BARRETT, J.).  Whatever the context, 
the  “more  comprehensive  the  [enforcement]  scheme”  in  a
statute,  “the  less  likely  that  it  leaves  the  door  open  for 
§1983 suits.”  Ibid.  After all, when a statute “ ‘provides its 
own comprehensive enforcement scheme, the requirements 
of  that  enforcement  procedure  may  not  be  bypassed  by 
bringing  suit  directly  under  §1983.’ ”    Middlesex  County 
Sewerage  Authority  v.  National  Sea  Clammers  Assn.,  453 
U. S. 1, 20 (1981).