Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners
1935 U.S. LEXIS 60, 294 U.S. 608, 55 S. Ct. 570 (1935)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
States may, under their police power, regulate the advertising practices of professions, such as dentistry, to protect public health and maintain professional standards, even if such regulations prohibit truthful advertising, so long as the restrictions are not arbitrary and have a rational relation to the public welfare.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, a dentist licensed in 1918, practiced in Portland, Oregon.
- The plaintiff continuously advertised his practice in newspapers, periodicals, and with specific types of signs, and employed advertising solicitors.
- In his advertisements, the plaintiff represented his professional superiority, stated prices, offered free examinations, guaranteed dental work, and claimed his operations were performed painlessly.
- The plaintiff alleged these advertising statements were truthful and made in good faith, and that through these methods, he had developed a large and lucrative practice.
- The plaintiff claimed to have acquired superior ability, standardized office operations, and established uniform charges due to efficient practices.
- In 1933, Oregon enacted Chapter 166, which amended the definition of 'unprofessional conduct' for dentists to include advertising professional superiority, prices, large displays/signs, employing solicitors, offering free dental work/examinations, or guaranteeing work/pain-free operations.
- The plaintiff had made contracts for display signs and newspaper advertisements, which would be affected if the statute were enforced.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, a dentist, filed a suit in an Oregon state circuit court against the members of the State Board of Dental Examiners, seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the 1933 statute.
- The plaintiff alleged that the statute violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and impaired the obligation of contracts under Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution.
- The circuit court sustained a demurrer to the complaint, ruling against the plaintiff's contentions.
- Upon the plaintiff's refusal to plead further, the circuit court dismissed the suit.
- The plaintiff appealed this decision to the Oregon Supreme Court.
- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, agreeing with its view on the federal constitutional questions.
- The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state statute prohibiting dentists from advertising professional superiority, prices, free examinations, or guarantees, or from using certain types of signs or advertising solicitors, violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Contracts Clause of Article I of the U.S. Constitution, even if the advertising is truthful?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Hughes
No, a state statute prohibiting dentists from certain types of advertising does not violate the Due Process, Equal Protection, or Contracts Clauses, even if the advertising is truthful, because the state has the authority to regulate professions to protect public health and maintain professional standards. The Court reasoned that the State's police power allows it to regulate the practice of dentistry to protect the public against ignorance, incapacity, and imposition. Unlike traders in commodities, professionals treating bodily ills demand different standards of conduct. The legislature was not bound to provide for determinations of the relative proficiency of particular practitioners but was entitled to consider the general injurious effects of such advertising practices, which can facilitate unwarranted and misleading claims, tend to demoralize the profession, and lure credulous or ignorant individuals. Therefore, a general rule to counteract these effects is permissible, even if it prohibits truthful statements in specific instances. The Court also held that the plaintiff's contracts were necessarily subject to the State's protective power and found no unconstitutional discrimination in limiting the regulation to dentists, as the State can deal with different professions according to public needs.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant as it established a broad deference to state legislatures in regulating professional conduct, particularly in fields related to public health. It solidified the principle that the state's police power can justify restrictions on even truthful commercial speech for professionals, distinguishing them from ordinary businesses. This ruling provided a foundation for extensive state regulation of professional advertising and contributed to the prevailing view that professional ethics, as defined by the state, could override individual claims of free commercial speech for decades, until later cases like Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976) began to expand First Amendment protection to commercial speech.
