Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.

Facts of the case

An Oklahoma law prohibited persons who were not licensed optometrists or ophthalmologists to fit lenses for eyeglasses. Non-licensed individuals were also prohibited from duplicating optical instruments without written prescriptions from licensed ophthalmologists. The Lee Optical Company challenged the law.

Question

Did the Oklahoma law violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

In a unanimous decision authored by William Orville Douglas, the Court held that while the law may have been "needless" and "wasteful," it was the duty of the legislature, not the courts, "to balance the advantages and disadvantages of the new requirement." That is, Courts should not be able to invalidate state economic regulations on the grounds that they disagree with the theories supporting them. Even if the state law imposes burdens or waste, the legislature has the sole authority over weighing its benefits against its costs. In sum, the opticians could not prove that the law had no rational relationship to legitimate state objectives.

Supreme Court of the United States

348 U.S. 483, 99 L. Ed. 2d 563, 75 S. Ct. 461, 1955 U.S. LEXIS 1003, SCDB 1954-046

NO. 184

1955-03-28

This book, and all H2O books, are Creative Commons licensed for sharing and re-use with the exception of certain excerpts. Any excerpts from the Restatements of the Law, Principles of the Law, and the Model Penal Code are copyright by The American Law Institute. Excerpts are reproduced with permission, not as part of a Creative Commons license.