Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-534_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 28

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

5 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

gress  may  constitutionally  subtract  from  their  authority, 
an unexpressed purpose to nullify a state’s control over its 
officers  and  agents  is  not  lightly  to  be  attributed  to  Con-
gress.”  317  U. S.,  at  351.    For  the  Congress  that  enacted 
the Sherman Act in 1890, it would have been a truly radi-
cal  and  almost  certainly  futile  step  to  attempt  to  prevent 
the  States  from  exercising  their  traditional  regulatory 
authority,  and  the  Parker  Court  refused  to  assume  that 
the Act was meant to have such an effect. 

When  the  basis  for  the  Parker  state-action  doctrine  is 
understood,  the  Court’s  error  in  this  case  is  plain. 
In 
1890,  the  regulation  of  the  practice  of  medicine  and  den-
tistry  was  regarded  as  falling  squarely  within  the  States’ 
sovereign  police  power.  By  that  time,  many  States  had 
established  medical  and  dental  boards,  often  staffed  by 
doctors  or  dentists,4  and  had  given  those  boards  the  au-
thority  to  confer  and  revoke  licenses.5   This  was  quintes-
sential  police  power  legislation,  and  although  state  laws 
were  often  challenged  during  that  era  under  the  doctrine 
of substantive due process, the licensing of medical profes-
sionals easily survived such assaults.  Just one year before 
the  enactment  of  the  Sherman  Act,  in  Dent  v.  West  Vir-
ginia, 129 U. S. 114, 128 (1889), this Court rejected such a 
challenge to a state law requiring all physicians to obtain 
a  certificate  from  the  state  board  of  health  attesting  to 
their  qualifications.  And  in  Hawker  v.  New  York,  170 
U. S.  189,  192  (1898),  the  Court  reiterated  that  a  law 

—————— 

4 Shrylock 54–55; D. Johnson and H. Chaudry, Medical Licensing and 

Discipline in America 23–24 (2012). 

5 In Hawker v. New York, 170 U. S. 189 (1898), the Court cited state
laws authorizing such boards to refuse or revoke medical licenses.  Id., 
at 191–193, n. 1.  See also Douglas v. Noble, 261 U. S. 165, 166 (1923)
(“In  1893  the  legislature  of  Washington  provided  that  only  licensed
persons should practice dentistry”  and “vested  the authority to license
in a board of examiners, consisting of five practicing dentists”).