SCOTUS Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson disputes both sides in Marion County nursing home case
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s newest member, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, grilled the attorney representing Marion County's public health agency Tuesday as she grappled with his controversial request to prohibit lawsuits against public agencies that violate federal nursing home law and welfare programs.
The energetic back-and-forth came at a pinnacle moment in the case of Health & Hospital Corp. of Marion County v. Talevski. The case centers on the question of whether a post-Civil War law giving people the ability to sue over rights violations extends to nursing home residents and beneficiaries of federal safety net programs like Medicaid.
Health & Hospital — the public agency which operates Sidney & Lois Eskenzai Hospital, the county health department, EMS and owns more than 70 nursing homes — contends it does not.
Law tied to Ku Klux Klan Act
Lawrence Robbins, the agency's attorney, argued that point alongside Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday. They said the law in question, commonly known as Section 1983, doesn't allow third parties to sue over violations of contracts between states and the federal government, like the kind that govern how states use Medicaid funding.
Nor does it allow people to sue to enforce federal nursing home residents' rights, they argued.
That's when Jackson responded. She said the whole reason Congress created Section 1983 was to provide the right to sue when rights have been violated — period.
Her critique of their argument was one of the more tense moments from the hour-and-a-half session.
“That was precisely what Congress was doing,” she said.
The law “was a part of the Ku Klux Klan Act where Congress had looked at the situation of states not giving forum, not giving a cause of action to people who were being terrorized,” Jackson continued. “Congress created the right in order to allow people to go to court.”
Jackson suggested Robbins was arguing for the court to imagine a world in which the use of the word "laws" carried a different meaning.
“You’re not saying that ‘laws’ is ambiguous in (Section 1983), are you?”
“No,” Robbins said.
“If you agree that this is unambiguous, that Congress was giving people the right to enforce laws that gave them certain rights, and if you agree that (the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act) is a law — maybe you don’t — ”
“I do,” Robbins responded.
“Okay,” Jackson said. “Then it seems to me odd to suggest that we as a court can re-interpret the word ‘law’ in Section 1983 to carve anything out.”
Robbins reiterated his argument that when Congress created Section 1983 nearly 150 years ago, lawmakers did so at a time when it was generally understood that third parties could not sue to enforce contracts.
Mayor Hogsett:Health agency went 'a step too far' with SCOTUS case, calls for change
Case compared to landmark abortion ruling
Jackson's retort echoed the larger concerns shared by legal experts who say removing the right to sue in the context of the Talevski suit would be like removing the entitlement part of federal entitlement programs. One legal expert previously told IndyStar Health & Hospital's case in front of the Supreme Court is as monumental for Medicaid as the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization was for abortion.
Nancy Pelosi and the Biden Administration have also sounded the alarm. They joined other powerful Democrats to argue in court briefs that what the Marion County agency wants to do to Section 1983 lawsuits runs against everything Congress intended.
In Indiana, Section 1983 has been used to secure assistance for foster children, hepatitis C patients and children with severe disabilities after the state denied their benefits.
But the justices, including Jackson, also had critiques of the arguments offered by Andrew Tutt, the attorney representing Talevski's family.
They pointed to the other half of the Biden Administration's stance. The administration wants the justices to stop Talevski's lawsuit because there are already remedies out there people can seek that don't involve lawsuits, like submitting a complaint about poor nursing home care to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
The newest justice also questioned Talevski's family's request for financial damages as part of the original lawsuit.
"I'm looking at the administrative remedies (available to nursing home residents) and I see that in some sections of them there are even civil penalties that can be extracted in the context of administration, and Congress doesn't say that money that you get goes to the victims of nursing home failures and neglect," Jackson said. "So it didn't seem as though Congress really was focused on making sure that individuals in the context of these nursing homes were getting paid, or getting money in compensation."
Nursing home case:Despite outcry, Marion County agency doesn't pull case that's at Supreme Court
Indiana wants clear language on liability risk
On behalf of Indiana, Fisher, who works for Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, dedicated his time slot Tuesday to asking the justices to address the bigger question of whether lawsuits can ever be brought against states to enforce federal safety net programs.
"Neither the federal government or the states can possibly investigate and remedy every violation of these rights that are given to people," said Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "1983 speaks clearly. They have a judicial remedy. Why shouldn't we just respect our precedent?"
Fisher said the ball is actually in Congress' court. It needs to enact language that specifically puts states on notice about their potential for liability if they enter into contracts with the federal government to participate in programs like Medicaid.
"I think that's exactly the sort of thing we want Congress to have to say," Fisher said, in response to similar questioning by Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. The State of Indiana wants a clear statement, Fisher said later on: '"Here's what you're in for if you take this money.'"
Call IndyStar courts reporter Johnny Magdaleno at 317-273-3188 or email him at jmagdaleno@indystar.com. Follow him on Twitter @IndyStarJohnny
This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: SCOTUS Justice Brown Jackson disputes both sides in Marion County case
