Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-534_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 23

18 

NORTH CAROLINA STATE BD. OF DENTAL
EXAMINERS v. FTC 
Opinion of the Court 

petitive conduct “promotes state policy, rather than merely
the  party’s  individual  interests.”    Patrick,  supra,  at  100– 
101; see also Ticor, 504 U. S., at 639–640. 

The  Court  has  identified  only  a  few  constant  require­
ments  of  active  supervision:  The  supervisor  must  review
the  substance  of  the  anticompetitive  decision,  not  merely
the  procedures  followed  to  produce  it,  see  Patrick,  486 
U. S.,  at  102–103;  the  supervisor  must  have  the  power  to 
veto  or  modify  particular  decisions  to  ensure  they  accord
with  state  policy,  see  ibid.;  and  the  “mere  potential  for
state supervision is not an adequate substitute for a deci­
sion by the State,” Ticor, supra, at 638.  Further, the state 
supervisor may not itself be an active market participant.
In  general,  however,  the  adequacy  of  supervision  other­
wise will depend on all the circumstances of a case. 

* 

* 

* 
The  Sherman  Act  protects  competition  while  also  re­
specting  federalism.  It  does  not  authorize  the  States  to 
abandon  markets  to  the  unsupervised  control  of  active
market participants, whether trade associations or hybrid 
agencies.  If a State wants to rely on active market partic­
ipants  as  regulators,  it  must  provide  active  supervision  if
state-action immunity under Parker is to be invoked. 

The  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Fourth 

Circuit is affirmed. 

It is so ordered.