Page:Health and Hospital Corp. of Marion Co. v. Talevski.pdf/21

Rh they recognize are presumptively enforceable under §1983.

Even if a statutory provision unambiguously secures rights, a defendant “may defeat t[he] presumption by demonstrating that Congress did not intend” that §1983 be available to enforce those rights. Rancho Palos Verdes, 544 U. S., at 120. For evidence of such intent, we have looked to “the statute creating the right.” Ibid. A statute could, of course, expressly forbid §1983’s use. Fitzgerald, 555 U. S., at 252; Rancho Palos Verdes, 544 U. S., at 120. Absent such a sign, a defendant must show that Congress issued the same command implicitly, by creating “a ‘comprehensive enforcement scheme that is incompatible with individual enforcement under §1983.’ ” Id., at 120. Only the latter path is at issue here.

Our precedent outlines what HHC must show to traverse the implicit-preclusion path. “ ‘The crucial consideration’ ” is whether “Congress intended a statute’s remedial scheme to ‘be the exclusive avenue through which a plaintiff may assert [his] claims.’ ” Fitzgerald, 555 U. S., at 252 (quoting Smith v. Robinson, 468 U. S. 992, 1009, 1012 (1984) (emphasis added)); Fitzgerald, 555 U. S., at 252 (framing “ ‘[t]he