Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-534_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 6

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash­
ington,  D. C.  20543,  of  any  typographical  or  other  formal  errors,  in  order
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

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 KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court. 
This  case  arises  from  an  antitrust  challenge  to  the 
actions  of  a  state  regulatory  board.    A  majority  of  the
board’s  members  are  engaged  in  the  active  practice  of
the  profession  it  regulates.  The  question  is  whether  the
board’s actions are protected from Sherman Act regulation
under  the  doctrine  of  state-action  antitrust  immunity,  as
defined  and  applied  in  this  Court’s  decisions  beginning 
with Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341 (1943). 

I 

A 

In  its  Dental  Practice  Act  (Act),  North  Carolina  has 
declared the practice of dentistry  to be a matter of public
concern  requiring  regulation.    N. C.  Gen.  Stat.  Ann.  §90– 
22(a)  (2013).  Under  the  Act,  the  North  Carolina  State 
Board  of  Dental  Examiners  (Board)  is  “the  agency  of  the
State for the regulation of the practice of dentistry.”  §90– 
22(b).

The Board’s principal duty is to create, administer, and
enforce  a  licensing  system  for  dentists.  See  §§90–29  to