Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-806_2dp3.pdf
Page Number: 70

2 

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

Congress to create new rights enforceable under an implied 
private right of action,” I also agree that there is no room
for “a multifactor balancing test to pick and choose which
federal requirements may be enforced by §1983 and which
may not.”  Id., at 286, 290 (emphasis added) (rejecting the 
standard articulated in Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U. S. 329, 
340–341 (1997)).  None of this is new ground.  We have pre-
viously held that  Gonzaga  “plainly repudiate[s] the ready
implication of a §1983 action that” our earlier decisions “ex-
emplified.”  Armstrong  v.  Exceptional  Child  Center,  Inc., 
575 U. S. 320, 330, n. (2015). 

to 

treat  medical  symptoms.” 

The  two  FNHRA  provisions  that  respondent  invokes
demonstrate what it takes to satisfy this demanding stand-
ard.  First, the Act mandates that a “nursing facility must 
protect and promote the rights of each resident, including 
. . .  [t]he  right  to  be  free  from  . . .  chemical  restraints  im-
posed for purposes of discipline or convenience and not re-
quired 
42  U. S. C. 
§1396r(c)(1)(A).  Second,  the  Act  protects  “[t]ransfer  and
discharge  rights,”  precluding  a  “nursing  facility”  from
transferring  or  discharging  “each  resident”  except  in  cer-
tain  circumstances.    §1396r(c)(2)(A)  (boldface  deleted).
Both of these provisions explicitly use the term “rights” to
describe discrete and concrete duties that a defined party 
(“nursing  facility”)  owes  to  a  particular  individual  (“each
resident”).  When  these  features  are  taken  together,  they
satisfy  the  standard  for  determining  whether  a  personal 
right exists.  See Gonzaga, 536 U. S., at 285–286; Alexander 
v. Sandoval, 532 U. S. 275, 288–289 (2001). 

II 
A 
When determining whether individual rights are enforce-
able under §1983, I again see much common ground with
the majority and agree entirely with JUSTICE Barrett’s ex-
planation of the governing standard.  That question “boils