Civil and Human Rights

Health and Hospital v. Talevski

In Health and Hospital v. Talevski, the Supreme Court is considering whether Spending Clause statutes can give rise to private rights enforceable under Section 1983.

Case Summary

In 2016, Gorgi Talevski began living in a nursing facility. That facility allegedly chemically restrained him with a high dose of psychotropic medications without justification and against his will, rendering him unable to feed himself or speak English, and then repeatedly transferred him to a facility far from his family—again, against his will—without providing him even the basic decency of his dentures. As a result, Talevski sued the nursing facility under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act of 1987 (FNHRA), a federal law authorized pursuant to Congress’ Spending Clause powers that requires nursing homes that accept Medicare and Medicaid funds to protect the rights of nursing home residents.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana dismissed the lawsuit, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, Indiana—the owner of Mr. Talevski’s nursing facility—asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, and it agreed to do so.

On September 23, 2022, CAC, along with the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation and the ACLU of Indiana, filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Talevski. Our brief makes two main points.

First, our brief explains why Health and Hospital’s argument that Spending Clause statutes categorically cannot give rise to a Section 1983 action cannot be reconciled with the text and history of Section 1983. The text of Section 1983 unambiguously provides a right to sue “[e]very person” who, under color of state law or custom, deprives another person of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. The plain language of that provision forecloses the argument that only certain laws can give rise to a Section 1983 action. Indeed, Section 1983 contains no modifier that suggests that laws passed pursuant to Congress’s Spending Clause authority do not fit within the statute’s broad “all laws” language. Notably, the Supreme Court has upheld this straightforward interpretation of the statute multiple times. The history of Section 1983 is also at odds with Health and Hospital’s argument. The chief concern of the drafters of Section 1983 was the protection of personal liberty. Given Section 1983’s drafters’ focus on protecting deeply personal liberties like the right to be free from unwarranted intrusions on one’s person and body, it would be especially problematic to exempt from that statute’s enforcement a broad class of laws that in many cases—as here—explicitly create analogous rights.

Second, our brief explains why there is no support for Health and Hospital’s argument that Spending Clause statutes cannot create judicially enforceable private rights. Health and Hospital argues that Spending Clause legislation creates a contract-like relationship between the federal government and the states, so private individuals should be treated as third-party beneficiaries, who were not permitted to sue on contracts at the time Section 1983 was written. Importantly, however, in prior cases in which this Court has invoked the contract law analogy to guide interpretation of Spending Clause statutes, it has exclusively done so in the face of statutory ambiguity—not where, as here, the text of the statute is unambiguous.

In sum, the text and history of Section 1983 plainly refute Health and Hospital’s argument that deprivations of rights created by the Spending Clause are not actionable via Section 1983. “All laws” means all laws, including those passed under Congress’ Spending Clause power.

Case Timeline

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
September 22, 2022

BLOG: Reflections on my Kendall Fellowship: I Couldn’t Have Asked for More

[caption id="attachment_15907" align="alignleft" width="261"] Charlotte Schwartz: Douglas T. Kendall Fellow 2021-22[/caption] I feel incredibly lucky...
By: Charlotte Schwartz
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

303 Creative, LLC v. Elenis

In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the Supreme Court is considering whether a state public accommodation law, which requires business to offer the same services to same-sex couples that it offers to different-sex couples, violates the...
Civil and Human Rights
August 7, 2022

In Harvard admissions case, will justices cherry-pick their history?

Washington Post
If you thought the Supreme Court term that just concluded was a disaster, brace yourself...
Civil and Human Rights
August 1, 2022

Originalism Watch: Fauxriginalist Opponents of Affirmative Action Bring Their Case to SCOTUS

Today, Constitutional Accountability Center filed a brief in support of the University of North Carolina...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina

In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court is considering whether it is permissible for public and private institutions of higher education...
Civil and Human Rights
July 21, 2022

BLOG: Fight to Abolish Slavery Continues in Congress and Federal Court

When most people hear that Congress is currently considering a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen