At that time, while we maintained it was nearly impossible to read the tea leaves on where the Court would ultimately come down, the questioning appeared to trend in our favor - NCISS has long been interested in this case, as it involves what types of requirements state licensing boards can impose on practitioners, of any profession, in order to legally operate in that state.   As NCISS members know, some state boards impose requirements beyond those reasonably necessary, most likely in an attempt to restrict market entry and limit competition for entrenched practitioners.

NCISS members will also recall that in July of 2014, NCISS/Lobbyit tracked and reported on two legislative hearings on anti-competitive licensing requirements, and populated our Advocacy Hub with contact information for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) official responsible for directing the FTC's inquiries into such practices, encouraging NCISS members to contact the FTC with pertinent examples for potential investigation.

"When a state empowers a group of active market participants to decide who can participate in its market, and on what terms, the need for supervision is manifest," Kennedy wrote.

The case is an important development in state licensure jurisprudence, and will surely lead to additional challenges.  NCISS members now have more solid legal footing for objecting to such state requirements which serve no legitimate purpose.