Difference between revisions of "North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission (2015)"
From Federalism in America
(Created page with "The United States Supreme Court ruling in this case limited states’ ability to operate independently on antitrust policy. Previously, the Parker Immunity Doctrine from ''Par...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | The United States Supreme Court ruling in this case limited states’ ability to operate independently on antitrust policy. Previously, the Parker Immunity Doctrine from ''Parker v. Brown'' (1943) exempted states acting in their sovereignty from federal antitrust law. After ''North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC'', state licensing boards are exempted from antitrust law only if the state government actively supervises those boards. As a result of this case and related rulings, state laws and regulations that are considered anti-competitive or that promote monopolies are easier to challenge and overturn. The result has been to promote deregulation and market competition. | + | The United States [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] ruling in this case limited states’ ability to operate independently on antitrust policy. Previously, the Parker Immunity Doctrine from ''Parker v. Brown'' (1943) exempted states acting in their sovereignty from federal antitrust law. After ''North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC'', state licensing boards are exempted from antitrust law only if the state government actively supervises those boards. As a result of this case and related rulings, state laws and regulations that are considered anti-competitive or that promote monopolies are easier to challenge and overturn. The result has been to promote [[deregulation]] and market competition. |
| − | SEE ALSO: Deregulation; Devolution; Interstate Commerce | + | SEE ALSO: [[Deregulation]]; [[Devolution]]; [[Interstate Commerce]] |
Latest revision as of 02:04, 30 November 2018
The United States Supreme Court ruling in this case limited states’ ability to operate independently on antitrust policy. Previously, the Parker Immunity Doctrine from Parker v. Brown (1943) exempted states acting in their sovereignty from federal antitrust law. After North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, state licensing boards are exempted from antitrust law only if the state government actively supervises those boards. As a result of this case and related rulings, state laws and regulations that are considered anti-competitive or that promote monopolies are easier to challenge and overturn. The result has been to promote deregulation and market competition.
SEE ALSO: Deregulation; Devolution; Interstate Commerce