Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-534_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 20

Cite as:  574 U. S. ____ (2015) 

15 

Opinion of the Court 

agencies  with  experts  in  complex  and  technical  subjects, 
see Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. United 
States, 471 U. S. 48, 64 (1985).  There is, moreover, a long 
tradition  of  citizens  esteemed  by  their  professional  col­
leagues devoting time, energy, and talent to enhancing the 
dignity of their calling.

Adherence  to  the  idea  that  those  who  pursue  a  calling 
must  embrace  ethical  standards  that  derive  from  a  duty
separate  from  the  dictates  of  the  State  reaches  back  at 
least to the Hippocratic Oath.  See generally S. Miles, The
Hippocratic  Oath  and  the  Ethics  of  Medicine  (2004).    In 
the  United  States,  there  is  a  strong  tradition  of  profes­
sional  self-regulation,  particularly  with  respect  to  the 
development of ethical rules.  See generally R. Rotunda & 
J.  Dzienkowski,  Legal  Ethics:  The  Lawyer’s  Deskbook  on
Professional  Responsibility  (2014);  R.  Baker,  Before  Bio­
ethics:  A  History  of  American  Medical  Ethics  From  the 
Colonial  Period  to  the  Bioethics  Revolution  (2013).    Den­
tists are no exception.  The American Dental Association, 
for example, in an exercise of “the privilege and obligation 
of  self-government,”  has  “call[ed]  upon  dentists  to  follow 
high  ethical  standards,”  including  “honesty,  compassion,
kindness,  integrity,  fairness  and  charity.”    American 
Dental  Association,  Principles  of  Ethics  and  Code  of  Pro­
fessional Conduct 3–4 (2012).  State laws and institutions 
are  sustained  by  this  tradition  when  they  draw  upon  the
expertise and commitment of professionals.

Today’s holding is not inconsistent with that idea.  The 

Board argues, however, that the potential for money dam­
ages  will  discourage  members  of  regulated  occupations
from  participating  in  state  government.    Cf.  Filarsky  v. 
Delia,  566  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2012)  (slip  op.,  at  12)  (warning 
in  the  context  of  civil  rights  suits  that  the  “the  most  tal­
ented  candidates  will  decline  public  engagements  if  they
do not receive the same immunity enjoyed by their public
employee  counterparts”).    But  this  case,  which  does  not