Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-534_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2014 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF DENTAL 

EXAMINERS v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 13–534.  Argued October 14, 2014—Decided February 25, 2015 

North Carolina’s Dental Practice Act (Act) provides that the North Car-
olina State Board of Dental Examiners (Board) is “the agency of the
State  for  the  regulation  of  the  practice  of  dentistry.”    The  Board’s 
principal duty is to create, administer, and enforce a licensing system 
for dentists; and six of its eight members must be licensed, practicing
dentists.  

The  Act  does  not  specify  that  teeth  whitening  is  “the  practice  of
dentistry.”  Nonetheless, after dentists complained to the Board that
nondentists  were  charging  lower  prices  for  such  services  than  den-
tists did, the Board issued at least 47 official cease-and-desist letters 
to  nondentist  teeth  whitening  service  providers  and  product  manu-
facturers, often warning that the unlicensed practice of dentistry is a
crime.  This and other related Board actions led nondentists to cease 
offering teeth whitening services in North Carolina.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an administrative com-
plaint,  alleging  that  the  Board’s  concerted  action  to  exclude 
nondentists  from  the  market  for  teeth  whitening  services  in  North
Carolina constituted an anticompetitive and unfair method of compe-
tition under the Federal Trade Commission Act.  An Administrative 
Law Judge (ALJ) denied the Board’s motion to dismiss on the ground 
of state-action immunity.  The FTC sustained that ruling, reasoning
that  even  if  the  Board  had  acted  pursuant  to  a  clearly  articulated
state  policy  to  displace  competition,  the  Board  must  be  actively  su-
pervised  by  the  State  to  claim  immunity,  which  it  was  not.    After  a 
hearing  on  the  merits,  the  ALJ  determined  that  the  Board  had  un-
reasonably  restrained  trade  in  violation  of  antitrust  law.    The  FTC 
again sustained the ALJ, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed the FTC in