October Term 2014 · Docket 13-534
Does a state board of licensed professionals qualify for antitrust immunity when its members regulate their own competitors?
The dispute centers on whether a state dental board's enforcement of cease-and-desist orders against non-licensed hygienists violates federal antitrust law.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Mooppan argued the board retains state immunity. He stated part-time status does not remove protection. He emphasized the need to balance expert benefits against risks.
Mr. Stewart argued the board acts as a private entity. He stated active supervision is required for private agencies. He claimed this case illustrates the need for strict oversight.
Justice Alito asked whether federal or state law defines state instrumentality. He sought clarity on the governing legal framework.
Justice Ginsburg noted the board lacked authority to issue orders. She questioned the basis for antitrust exemption without state authorization.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 49-27 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 49-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 49-27 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 49-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 29-1 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 29-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 51-21 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 51-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 51-4 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 51-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-1 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 43-47
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
North Carolina's dental board issued orders against non-licensed hygienists. The Federal Trade Commission challenged these actions. The board claims state antitrust immunity. The FTC argues the board acted as a private entity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 49-27 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 49-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 49-27 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 49-27
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 14, 2014.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 51-21 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 51-21
What each side wants
The board wants the Court to affirm its antitrust immunity. It argues its members act as state officials. It seeks to keep its regulatory powers intact.
The FTC wants the Court to deny antitrust immunity. It argues the board acted as a private competitor. It seeks to enforce federal antitrust laws against the board.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 49-27 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 49-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 49-27 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 49-27
What each side says
The board argues state agency status grants immunity. It claims part-time officials retain state action protection. It asserts experts should balance regulatory costs and benefits.
The FTC argues the board lacks active state supervision. It claims private agency status requires strict oversight. It asserts the board acted without valid state authorization.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 49-27 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 49-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 49-27 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 49-27
What the justices asked
Justice Kagan asked which specific factors determine state agency status. She questioned if all listed factors are mandatory.
Justice Breyer asked if a simple oath changes the legal analysis. He questioned if this case differs from prior precedent involving oaths. He asked how this case differs if the proposition is accepted.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 29-1 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 29-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 51-21 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 51-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 51-4 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 51-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-1 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 43-47
Why it matters
This case defines the boundary between state regulation and private competition. It determines whether professional boards can restrict market entry. It impacts how states structure regulatory agencies. It affects the balance between expert oversight and free markets.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 49-27 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 49-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 49-27 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 49-27
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 29-1 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 29-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 51-21 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 51-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 51-4 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 51-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-1 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 43-47
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 49-27 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 49-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 49-27 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 49-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 49-27 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 49-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 49-27 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 49-27
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.