793 F.3d 281
2d Cir.2015Background
- Connecticut Dental Commission issued a declaratory ruling on June 8, 2011 restricting certain teeth-whitening procedures to licensed dentists.
- July 11, 2011, Connecticut DPHealth warned Sensational Smiles to cease LED-assisted whitening or face action.
- Sensational Smiles sued, challenging the LED-use restriction as applied under Equal Protection and Due Process.
- District Court granted summary judgment for defendants; only the LED restriction issue remained contested.
- The court treated the issue under rational-basis review, focusing on public health protection and potential health risks of LED lighting.
- The majority held there are rational bases for restricting LED lights to dentists, including patient safety and professional diagnostic capabilities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the LED restriction constitutional under rational-basis review? | Sensational Smiles: no rational relation to public health; protectionism not legitimate | Connecticut: any rational basis linking health risks to restricted dentist use suffices | Yes; the LED rule survives rational-basis review |
| Does the rule promote a legitimate public health interest despite potential rent-seeking? | Rent-seeking motive invalidates the public health rationale | Even with protectionist motive, there is a rational link to public health | There are rational grounds including health risk and diagnostic competence |
| Can economic protectionism alone sustain rational-basis review in state action? | Pure protectionism cannot be a legitimate state interest | Economic favoritism may be rational when tied to public objectives | State economic favoritism can be rational; not overturned absent stricter grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Heller v. Doe, 509 F.3d 312 (Supreme Court 1993) (rational basis review permits any conceivable legitimate basis)
- Molinari v. Bloomberg, 564 F.3d 587 (2d Cir. 2009) (rational basis scrutiny requires conceivable rational link to legitimate purpose)
- Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (Supreme Court 1905) (constitutionality of regulation tempered by public health necessity)
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma Inc., 348 U.S. 483 (Supreme Court 1955) (prescription-like regimes may advance public health goals)
- Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1992) (local objectives and reliance interests can justify differential treatment)
- Fitzgerald v. Racing Ass’n of Central Iowa, 539 U.S. 103 (Supreme Court 2003) (economic differentiation can be rational if tied to public goals or stability)
- City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297 (Supreme Court 1976) (grandfathering can survive rational basis review based on reliance and character considerations)
- N. Carolina State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. FTC, 135 S. Ct. 1101 (Supreme Court 2015) (antitrust immunity and regulatory control considerations discussed)