Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

Licensing Boards: Still Brazen After All These Years

by February 25, 2025
February 25, 2025
Licensing Boards: Still Brazen After All These Years

Stephen Slivinski

Ten years ago, on February 25, the Supreme Court of the United States reminded us that maybe the Sherman Antitrust Act, the federal statute passed in 1890 intended to enforce and increase market competition, should be aimed at the only lasting anti-competitive force in the modern market economy: the government itself. 

It all started nearly 20 years ago when the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners declared war on shopping mall teeth whiteners, none of whom were dentists. The board sent more than forty-five cease-and-desist letters to entrepreneurs offering conventional teeth-whitening services—not in spacious and well-appointed offices but more like modest spaces for people to apply the products themselves with some help and maybe an infrared lamp provided by the staff. The dental board also convinced the state’s Board of Cosmetic Arts Examiners to issue similar letters. In 2007, they also began sending letters to shopping mall managers recommending eviction of the offending businesses.

This all happened because the board members wanted to bully their competitors out of business because the dental board consisted mainly of licensed dentists—six out of the eight board members—who saw these upstarts as a threat to their existing businesses. So, using the power the state government delegated to them to enforce occupational licensing laws, the board defined the practice of dentistry to also include teeth whitening. This meant that the shopping mall teeth whiteners, to continue to operate their business, needed to spend thousands of dollars and years of classwork to get an accredited dental degree and then jump through the additional hoops to get state dental licensing. 

It was obviously meant to be a death sentence for these competitors, meted out by the judge, jury, and executioner that was the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners.

Then, on February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States reprimanded the North Carolina board for this shakedown. The SCOTUS majority effectively stated that state licensing boards made up of a majority of “active market participants” and not subject to active legislative supervision were effectively acting anti-competitively—like a private cartel—by using a regulatory power that the government handed to them to protect their incumbent market interests. 

You’d think that over the past ten years most state legislatures and boards would have wised up and at least tried to look less suspicious even as they continued to box out their economic rivals. But you’d be wrong.

A recent report, co-authored by me and two attorneys from the Pacific Legal Foundation, took a look at how many “active market participants” sit on dental boards today versus ten years ago. Most of them look the same as they did then, and a few even look worse. 

Since the NC Dental case was decided, no state has changed its laws to decrease the industry control of dental boards. Three states—Georgia, Michigan, and North Dakota—have actually increased the number of board seats held by people with clear conflicts of interest. And eight states allow lobbyist control of dental licensing board nominations by requiring that the governor choose board members only from a list provided by a state or national dental association.

This isn’t only a problem on dental licensing boards. Of the more than 1,700 occupational licensing boards across the country, 85 percent are required by statute to award a majority (and sometimes a supermajority) of voting seats on the board to those already licensed and currently active in the profession.

What should this mean to liberty-minded legislators and litigators? You can tune in to this February 27 Cato webinar to hear our thoughts. And you can read the report here.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
SCOOP: FCC to brief lawmakers on George Soros investigation in closed-door meeting
next post
On the Expansion of Executive Power: An Overview

You may also like

The Supreme Court Strikes Down Home Equity Theft

May 25, 2023

Central Planning Will Not Solve California’s Housing Shortage

September 24, 2024

Is Freedom Falling? Take a Closer Look in...

April 4, 2024

The State of Student Loan Forgiveness: October 2024

October 17, 2024

A US Attack on Iran Could Cause the...

June 18, 2025

Jack Dorsey on Why Social Media’s Future Should...

May 21, 2024

Congress Can’t Delegate Away Its Power to Define...

April 29, 2024

Friday Feature: Roots Academy

November 17, 2023

The Brussels Effect?: Potential Domestic Impacts of International...

August 23, 2023

Misleading Debt Limit Deal Math Counts Phantom Savings

June 1, 2023

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Padel club boom sees 3,200 venues built in 2024 as global popularity accelerates

      June 27, 2025
    • Sweet or taxable? M&S strawberry sandwich sparks new VAT debate

      June 27, 2025
    • Starmer thanks business for footing tax bill

      June 27, 2025
    • UK SMEs must strengthen cybersecurity as geopolitical threats escalate, warns Espria

      June 27, 2025
    • Jeremy Hunt ‘made a mistake’ targeting non-doms, says shadow business secretary

      June 27, 2025
    • Small firms raise alarm over Companies House rule change forcing profit disclosure

      June 27, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,326)
    • Investing (2,074)
    • Politics (15,824)
    • Stocks (3,172)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved