USSC rules against NC Board of Dentistry

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/argument-preview-do-state-licensing-boards-have-immunity-from-antitrust-laws/

http://www.pennlawreview.com/print/162-U-Pa-L-Rev-1093.pdf

At first glance it looks like the key point was that the majority of board were market participants themselves and without substantial oversight from another element of the executive that they were a de facto cartel rather than an independent, objective state regulator.

Bingo. That's exactly what most of these boards are.

You no more need a license to apply teeth whitener than you need one to arrange flowers, pick out curtains or braid hair.

My first reaction is this is a good thing. Licensing boards have become part of the political process, rather than carrying out the laws created by the political process.

Acronym Police, "SCOTUS" Not "USSC"

Supreme Court of the United States

Similar for POTUS.

Paul in PA

Acronym Police, "SCOTUS" Not "USSC"

That's much better than the Supreme Court Room of the United Municipalities.

Useful to bring this thread back to light since the FTC staff posted important info last month. Their "guidance" document fills in some gaps in the supreme court decision.
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/competition-policy-guidance/active_supervision_of_state_boards.pdf

Here are some additional links that may be of interest.

American Bar Assc page tracking events subsequent to the supreme court decision:
North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners Decision Resources
Note that the LegalZoom case settled on terms highly favorable to the company.

California Attorney General's opinion:
http://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/15-402.pdf

October 2015 briefing to California joint legislative committee:
Senate Informational & Special Session Hearings | Senator Kevin de LeÌ?n

Articles by a law professor with the Center for Public Interest Law:
What's New - School of Law - University of San Diego

And finally, the California board is receiving a briefing on this case at their meeting this week.

I'll bet those dentists are regretting pushing this, especially given this line I saw in one article "it's not at all clear from the statutory language that teeth whitening falls within the scope of the practice of dentistry." Boards making up what isn't law is a concern for all of us.

The big concern here is the long list of work items routinely performed by land surveyors, but which could be performed (to what extent is debatable) by others in differing fields. How does this decision impact the limiting of licensed practice of specific items to a protected class (surveyors only/engineers only/architects only)? States with multiple professions administered by a combined board may be in a better position than those where each profession has it's own board. For example, what would appear to be identical work must be done by architects for certain categories of buildings but by engineers for different categories of buildings. Professionals have been brought up before the board for not understanding which buildings fall within their realm of licensure.

Is photogrammetry land surveying? Is scanning land surveying? Is the preparation of boundary descriptions land surveying? Is............... land surveying? Maybe yes and maybe no. Who has made that decision? Who enforces how that decision is to be interpreted?