Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-806_2dp3.pdf
Page Number: 68.0

36 

HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF MARION 
CTY. v. TALEVSKI 
THOMAS, J., dissenting 

States. 

The line from Mellon and Butler, to Thiboutot, to this case 
amounts  to  a  constitutional  bait  and  switch  that  cannot 
continue  to  be  glossed  over  or  ignored.    In  holding  that
spending conditions are not merely contractual, but can di-
rectly impose obligations on the States with the force of fed-
eral law, the Court unravels the very rationale for their con-
stitutionality.  Either conditions in statutes enacted under 
the spending power are in the nature of contract terms and
do not secure rights by federal law, or they are unconstitu-
tional because they exceed the spending power and illicitly 
commandeer the States.  The consequence of the majority’s
rejection  of  the  contractual  understanding  is  not  that
spending conditions are enforceable under §1983.  Rather, 
it is that they are unconstitutional.  It is well past time for 
this Court to re-examine Thiboutot and the nature of Con-
gress’ spending power.