U.S. Supreme Court
Mar. 5, 2015
States must reassess regulatory boards
Last week, the U.S. high court ruled that state boards helmed by active market participants must be actively supervised to invoke state-action antitrust immunity.
Daniel G. Swanson
Partner
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Phone: (213) 229-7340
Email: dswanson@gibsondunn.com
Harvard Univ Law School; Cambridge MA
Daniel is a partner in the Los Angeles office and co-chairs the firm's Antitrust and Competition practice group.
Blaine H. Evanson
Partner
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Appellate and Constitutional Law and Intellectual Property
3161 Michelson Drive
Irvine , California 92612-4412
Phone: (949) 451-3805
Email: bevanson@gibsondunn.com
Columbia Univ Law School
Blaine is based in the firm's Orange County office, where he practices in the Appellate and Constitutional Law group.
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, holding in a 6-3 decision that "a state board on which a controlling number of decisionmakers are active market participants in the occupation the board regulates must [be actively supervised by the state] in order to invoke state-action antitrust immunity."
The Federal Trade Commission claimed North Carolina's dental board - by issuing cease-and-desist let...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In