Williamson v. Lee Optical Co.

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Williamson v. Lee Optical Co.
ArgueDate=March 2
ArgueYear=1955
DecideDate=March 28
DecideYear=1955
FullName=Mac Q. Williamson, Attorney General of Oklahoma, et al. v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Incorporated, et al.
USVol=348
USPage=483
Citation=75 S. Ct. 461; 99 L. Ed. 563; 1955 U.S. LEXIS 1003
Prior=Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
Subsequent=
Holding=The Court held that state laws regulating business will only be subject to rational basis review, and that the Court need not contemplate all possible reasons for legislation.
SCOTUS=1955-1956
Majority=Douglas
JoinMajority="unanimous"
NotParticipating=Harlan
LawsApplied=

"Williamson v. Lee Optical Co.", 348 U.S. 483 (1955), [ [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=348&page=483 348 U.S. 483] Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that state laws regulating business will only be subject to rational basis review, and that the Court need not contemplate all possible reasons for legislation.

Facts

The optician plaintiff brought suit to have a 1953 Oklahoma law declared unconstitutional and to enjoin state officials from enforcing it. The law at issue (59 Okla. Stat. Ann. §§ 941-947, Okla. Laws 1953, c. 13, §§ 2-8) contained provisions making 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. This law required every individual seeking to have eye glasses made, repaired, or refitted to obtain a prescription. This jeopardized the profitability and even the survival of Oklahoma opticians.

Procedural Posture

The District Court ruled that portions of §§ 2,3, and 4 of the Act violated the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and that portions of § 3 of the Act violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

The Decision

Justice Douglas, writing for the Court, articulates the standard for determining whether the law survives a Due Process challenge, stating "...the law need not be in every respect logically consistent with its aims to be constitutional. It is enough that there is an evil at hand for correction, and that it might be thought that the particular legislative measure was a rational way to correct it."

According to Justice Douglas, “The day is gone when this court uses the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down state laws, regulatory of business and industrial conditions, because they may be unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school of thought.”

The Court summarily addresses the Equal Protection issue in this case, explaining "The prohibition of the Equal Protection Clause goes no further than invidious discrimination. We cannot say that this point has been reached here.”

ee also

*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 348

External links

* [http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/447/ Summary of case from OYEZ]