Opinion of the Court
The Talevskis complained again to the Department, which later issued a report regarding the Talevskis’ complaints. Subsequently, petitioner American Senior Communities LLC (ASC), which manages VCR, contacted Mr. Talevski’s wife, Ivanka, to discuss the possibility of Mr. Talevski’s return. At this point, however, Mr. Talevski had acclimated to his new home, and the Talevskis feared retribution against him if he returned to VCR. So they opted to leave him in the new facility, which meant that every family visit required a 3-hour round trip.
In 2019, Mr. Talevski (through Ivanka) sued VCR, ASC, and petitioner Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County (collectively, HHC) under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983.[1] The lawsuit claimed that HHC’s treatment of Mr. Talevski—in particular, the use of chemical restraints and the persistent transfer attempts—had violated rights that the FNHRA guaranteed him as a nursing-home resident. The District Court granted HHC’s subsequent motion to dismiss the complaint, reasoning that no plaintiff can enforce provisions of the FNHRA via §1983.
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. It concluded that, under this Court’s precedent, the relevant FNHRA provisions “unambiguously confer individually enforceable rights on nursing-home residents,” making those rights presumptively enforceable via §1983. 6 F. 4th 713, 720 (2021). The Court of Appeals held further that the presumption had not been rebutted here, because nothing in the FNHRA indicated congressional intent to foreclose §1983 enforcement of these rights. Id., at 720–721.
HHC filed a petition for certiorari, which we granted.[2]
- ↑ Marion County, Indiana, owns Health and Hospital Corporation, which in turn wholly owns VCR.
- ↑ After the Seventh Circuit’s ruling, Mr. Talevski passed away. We granted Ivanka Talevski’s substitution motion, and substituted her as a party at the same time we granted certiorari. See Supreme Court Rule
