Gorsuch, J., concurring
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 21–806
HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF MARION COUNTY, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. IVANKA TALEVSKI, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF GORGI TALEVSKI, DECEASED
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
[June 8, 2023]
Justice Gorsuch, concurring.
Section 1983 permits individuals to sue to vindicate their “rights … secured by … la[w].” Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983. I agree with the Court’s disposition of the two questions we took this case to decide and in arriving there largely track Justice Barrett’s reasoning. First, the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act qualifies as a “law” for purposes of §1983. Post, at 1 (Barrett, J., concurring). Second, the text of the Act’s operative provisions refers to individual “rights.” Post, at 2–4 (same). But, to my mind, there are other issues lurking here that petitioners failed to develop fully—whether legal rights provided for in spending power legislation like the Act are “secured” as against States in particular and whether they may be so secured consistent with the Constitution’s anti-commandeering principle. See, e.g., National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. 519, 575–578 (2012); Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 584 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2018) (slip op., at 14–18). As I see it, those are questions for another day.
