Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: In a Text and History Tour de Force, Justice Jackson Plus Six Members of the Court Refuse to Limit Section 1983

WASHINGTON, DC – Following the Supreme Court’s announcement of its decision in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski, Constitutional Accountability Center Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen issued the following reaction:

Through straightforward yet powerful logic, the Court today ruled that “[b]y its terms,” Section 1983 may be used “to enforce every right that Congress validly and unambiguously creates.” Section 1983, a critical Reconstruction-era statute, creates an express cause of action for the deprivation of “any rights . . . secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. As we explained in our amicus brief filed in this case, and as Justice Jackson wrote in her opinion for the Court, “‘laws’ means ‘laws,’ no less today than in the 1870s” when that landmark statute was enacted to empower individuals to hold state actors accountable for abuses of fundamental rights under color of state law.

By harnessing the text and history of Section 1983, Justice Jackson rejected once and for all the argument—which has been percolating in concurring and dissenting opinions on the Court for decades—that because the Federal Nursing Reform Act was passed pursuant to Congress’s Spending Clause power, the statute is incapable of conferring enforceable rights. Referring to the “pervasive state-sanctioned lawlessness and violence against the freedmen and their White Republican allies” at the time of Section 1983’s enactment that we highlighted in our brief, her opinion recognized the breadth of the cause of action that Congress created in 1871 and refused to “impose a categorical font-of-power condition” on Section 1983 “that the Reconstruction Congress did not.” As a result, the Medicaid Act and countless other rights-creating federal statutes remain enforceable in private lawsuits. We are thrilled with this result—as should be everyone who cares about the ability of individuals to access the courts to vindicate federal rights.

##

Resources:

Case page in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/health-and-hospital-v-talevski/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
November 20, 2025

Supreme Court Could Redefine the Limits of State Power

Newsweek
As the Supreme Court considers Chiles v. Salazar, a case examining Colorado’s 2019 ban on gay conversion therapy...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.

In Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., the Supreme Court is considering whether laws in Idaho and West Virginia that prohibit all transgender women and girls from joining women’s and girls’ sports teams—across...
Civil and Human Rights
November 9, 2025

Supreme Court to hear case on religious rights in prison

Deseret News
Oral arguments on Monday in Landor v. Louisiana will focus on religious liberties while incarcerated.
Civil and Human Rights
November 10, 2025

CAC Release: In Landor Case, Question of Whether Person in Prison Who Suffered Undisputed Religious Liberty Violation Has Any Meaningful Remedy Hangs in the Balance

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Landor v....
Civil and Human Rights
October 7, 2025

Supreme Court Appears Poised to Strike Down Ban on Anti-LGBTQ ‘Conversion Therapy’

The New Civil Rights Movement
The U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to strike down a Colorado ban on so-called conversion...
Civil and Human Rights
October 6, 2025

Conversion Therapy Ban Case Tests Traditional State Police Power

Bloomberg Law
A therapist’s challenge to Colorado’s ban on treatment the state says harms LGBTQ+ youths may...