Kansas Supreme Court Cases

A recent United States Supreme Court decision may mean that Kansas state boards may be vulnerable to antitrust lawsuits unless Kansas takes action to protect these boards. In North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, the United States Supreme Court held that state boards controlled by active market participants could be liable under Federal antitrust law. Antitrust laws are designed to prevent parties from limiting competition or trade in the market. Prior to the decision, many scholars and legal experts believed that state boards were immune from antitrust lawsuits, and so the Court’s decision represents a dramatic shift in antitrust law. This decision has the potential to have a massive impact on state boards in Kansas and may require serious action by the Kansas government. Under the Court’s decision, state boards can only receive immunity from antitrust lawsuits if they are actively supervised by the state. Most states, including Kansas, do not appear to meet the active supervision requirement. Without immunity, state boards may be at risk. The National Conference of State Legislatures has predicted that states will need to make significant changes to their state board systems or the states may face …show more content…
The United States Supreme Court’s decision appears to impact boards that meet three conditions 1) the board actively regulates either an industry or a profession, 2) a majority of the board members are active market participations in the industry or profession the board is regulating, and 3) the board is not actively supervised by the state. Based upon guidance from the Federal Trade Commission, thirteen Kansas boards appear to meet all three of these requirements and thus may be at risk to antitrust lawsuits. You can find a list of these boards in Table 1 of this memorandum, but they feature prominent boards such as the Kansas Boards of Healing Arts and the State Banking