Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-534_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

2 

NORTH CAROLINA STATE BD. OF DENTAL
EXAMINERS v. FTC 

Opinion of the Court 

90–41.  To  perform  that  function  it  has  broad  authority 
over  licensees.  See  §90–41.    The  Board’s  authority  with
respect to unlicensed persons, however, is more restricted:
like  “any  resident  citizen,”  the  Board  may  file  suit  to 
“perpetually  enjoin  any  person  from  . . .  unlawfully  prac­
ticing dentistry.”  §90–40.1. 

The Act provides that six of the Board’s eight members
must be licensed dentists engaged in the active practice of 
dentistry.  §90–22.  They  are  elected  by  other  licensed
dentists  in  North  Carolina,  who  cast  their  ballots  in elec­
tions conducted by the Board.  Ibid.  The seventh member 
must be a licensed and practicing dental hygienist, and he
or  she  is  elected  by  other  licensed  hygienists.  Ibid.  The 
final member is referred to by the Act as a “consumer” and
is  appointed  by  the  Governor.  Ibid.    All  members  serve 
3-year terms, and no person may serve more than two  con­
secutive terms.  Ibid.  The Act does not create any mecha­
nism for the removal of an elected member of the Board by 
a public official.  See ibid. 

Board  members  swear  an  oath  of  office,  §138A–22(a),
and  the  Board  must  comply  with  the  State’s  Administra­
tive  Procedure  Act,  §150B–1  et seq.,  Public  Records  Act, 
§132–1  et seq.,  and  open-meetings  law,  §143–318.9  et seq.  
The Board may promulgate rules and regulations govern­
ing  the  practice  of  dentistry  within  the  State,  provided
those mandates are not inconsistent with the Act and are 
approved  by  the  North  Carolina  Rules  Review  Commis­
sion,  whose  members  are  appointed  by  the  state  legisla­
ture.  See §§90–48, 143B–30.1, 150B–21.9(a). 

B 
In the 1990’s, dentists in North Carolina started whiten­
ing  teeth.  Many  of  those  who  did  so,  including  8  of  the
Board’s  10  members  during  the  period  at  issue  in  this 
case,  earned  substantial  fees  for  that  service.    By  2003,
nondentists  arrived  on  the  scene.    They  charged  lower