“ Respondents, the National Casualty Company in No. 435 and the American Hospital and Life Insurance Company in No. 436, engage in the sale of health and accident insurance. National is licensed to sell policies in all States, as well as the District of Columbia and Hawaii, while American is licensed in fourteen States. Solicitation of business for National is carried on by independent agents who operate on commission. The company's advertising material is prepared by it and shipped in bulk to these agents, who distribute the material locally and assume the expense of such dissemination. ”

“ American does not materially differ from National in method of operation.
The pertinent portions of the McCarran-Ferguson Act are set forth in the margin. [2] An examination of that statute and its legislative history establishes that the Act withdrew from the Federal Trade Commission the authority to regulate respondents' advertising practices in those States which are regulating those practices under their own laws. [3]
Petitioner asserts that for constitutional reasons the McCarran-Ferguson Act should be construed to authorize federal regulation in these cases. ”

“ However, petitioner concedes that this constitutional infirmity on the power of the States does not operate to hinder state regulation of the advertising practices of the respondents in the instant cases. Whatever may have been the intent of Congress with regard to interstate insurance practices which the States cannot for constitutional reasons regulate effectively, that intent is irrelevant in the cases before us. ”