Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.
- Decided
- May 9, 1955
- Docket
- NO. 184
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,938 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that under the rational basis standard legislative classifications may properly ameliorate part of a perceived problem or implement reform “one step at a time” — Charles Luck v. D.C. Parole Board (1993)
- holding that substantive due process did not protect unlicensed eye care professionals against statute requiring licensure for preparation and sale of eyeglasses — Shoul v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (2017)
- holding that statute that does not implicate fundamental constitutional right or liberty interest will be upheld if it bears rational relationship to legitimate legislative purpose and is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory — State v. Kirby Lenihan (071497) (2014)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court.
This suit was instituted in the District Court to have an Oklahoma law (59 Okla. Stat. Ann. §§ 941-947, Okla. Laws 1953, c. 13, §§ 2-8) declared unconstitutional and to enjoin state officials from enforcing it (28 U. S. C. §§ 2201, 2202, 2281) for the reason that it allegedly violated various provisions of the Federal Constitution. The matter was heard by a District Court of three judges, [*485] as required by 28 U. S. C. § 2281. That court held certain provisions of the law unconstitutional. 120 F. Supp. 128. The case is here by appeal, 28 U. S. C. § 1253.
The District Court held unconstitutional portions of three sections of the Act. First, it held invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment the portions of § 2 which make it unlawful for any person not a licensed optometrist or ophthalmologist to fit lenses to a face or to duplicate or replace into frames lenses or other optical appliances, except upon written prescriptive authority of an Oklahoma licensed ophthalmologist or optometrist. [1] [*486] An ophthalmologist is a duly licensed physician who specializes in the care of the eyes. An optometrist examines eyes for refractive error, recognizes (but does not treat) diseases of the eye, and fills prescriptions for eyeglasses. The optician is an artisan qualified to grind lenses, fill prescriptions, and fit frames.
Statutes cited
- 28 U.S.C. § 2201
- 28 U.S.C. § 2281
- 28 U.S.C. § 1253
Cite this
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc., 348 U.S. 483 (1955)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.