Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-534_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

10 

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

satisfy  this  test  yet  still  be  defined  at  so  high  a  level  of 
generality  as  to  leave  open  critical  questions  about  how 
and  to  what  extent  the  market  should  be  regulated.    See 
Ticor, supra, at 636–637.  Entities purporting to act under 
state  authority  might  diverge  from  the  State’s  considered 
definition  of  the  public  good.    The  resulting  asymmetry 
between  a  state  policy  and  its  implementation  can  invite
private  self-dealing.  The  second  Midcal  requirement—
active supervision—seeks to avoid this harm by requiring 
the State to review and approve interstitial policies made
by the entity claiming immunity. 

Midcal’s  supervision  rule  “stems  from  the  recognition
that  ‘[w]here  a  private  party  is  engaging  in  anticompeti­
tive  activity,  there  is  a  real  danger  that  he  is  acting  to 
further  his  own  interests,  rather  than  the  governmental
interests  of  the  State.’ ”    Patrick,  supra,  at  100.    Concern 
about the private incentives of active market participants 
animates  Midcal’s  supervision  mandate,  which  demands 
“realistic assurance that a private party’s anticompetitive
conduct  promotes  state  policy,  rather  than  merely  the 
party’s individual interests.”  Patrick, supra, at 101. 

B 
In  determining  whether  anticompetitive  policies  and 
conduct  are  indeed  the  action  of  a  State  in  its  sovereign
capacity,  there  are  instances  in  which  an  actor  can  be 
excused from Midcal’s active supervision requirement.  In 
Hallie  v.  Eau  Claire,  471  U. S.  34,  45  (1985),  the  Court
held  municipalities  are  subject  exclusively  to  Midcal’s 
“ ‘clear  articulation’ ”  requirement.    That  rule,  the  Court 
observed, is consistent with the objective of ensuring that
the  policy  at  issue  be  one  enacted  by  the  State  itself. 
Hallie explained that “[w]here the actor is a municipality,
there is little or no danger that it is involved in a private 
price-fixing  arrangement.    The  only  real  danger  is  that  it
will seek to further purely parochial public interests at the