Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-534_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 24

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

1 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 13–534 
_________________ 

NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF DENTAL  

EXAMINERS, PETITIONER v. FEDERAL 

TRADE COMMISSION
 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
 

[February 25, 2015]

 JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE 

THOMAS join, dissenting. 

The  Court’s  decision  in  this  case  is  based  on  a  serious 
misunderstanding of the doctrine of state-action antitrust
immunity  that  this  Court  recognized  more  than  60  years 
ago  in  Parker  v.  Brown,  317  U. S.  341  (1943).  In  Parker, 
the Court held that the Sherman Act does not prevent the 
States  from  continuing  their  age-old  practice  of  enacting
measures,  such  as  licensing  requirements,  that  are  de-
signed  to  protect  the  public  health  and  welfare.  Id.,  at 
352.  The case now before us involves precisely this type of 
state  regulation—North  Carolina’s  laws  governing  the 
practice of dentistry, which are administered by the North 
Carolina Board of Dental Examiners (Board).

Today, however, the Court takes the unprecedented step
of  holding  that  Parker  does  not  apply  to  the  North  Caro-
lina  Board  because  the  Board  is  not  structured  in  a  way 
that merits a good-government seal of approval; that is, it 
is  made  up  of  practicing  dentists  who  have  a  financial
incentive to use the licensing laws to further the financial 
interests  of  the  State’s  dentists.    There  is  nothing  new 
about  the  structure  of  the  North  Carolina  Board.    When 
the  States  first  created  medical  and  dental  boards,  well 
before  the  Sherman  Act  was  enacted,  they  began  to  staff