The US Supreme Court decides on whether nominally public body must show “active supervision” by the state government to enjoy antitrust immunity (North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners)

North Carolina Dentists is in the Hizzouse, Y’all! Woot Woot!* So, the only real surprise about yesterday’s opinion in North Carolina State Bd of Dental Examiners v. FTC is that it wasn’t unanimous. The strongly worded six-member majority opinion, already receiving early applause (see here and here), is further proof that the only thing the current Supreme Court dislikes more than antitrust plaintiffs is state government pork. For those of us passionate dorks who follow immunities issues closely (I, for one, only recently emerged from the ashes of this epic book project), North Carolina State Board is a candy store, really much more so than the Court’s other very recent, pro-enforcement state action smackdown, FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health Sys., Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1003 (2013). The only

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • Cleveland-Marshall School of Law

Quotation

Christopher Sagers, The US Supreme Court decides on whether nominally public body must show “active supervision” by the state government to enjoy antitrust immunity (North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners), 25 February 2015, e-Competitions Bulletin February 2015, Art. N° 72018

Visites 139

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues