Williamson, Attorney General of Oklahoma, et al. v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. et al. (348 U.S. 483)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 28, 1955 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 348 U.S. 483 · 75 S. Ct. 461
- Decided
- March 28, 1955
- Term
- October Term 1954
- Vote
- 8–0
- Majority author
- Justice Douglas
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
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, 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. 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.…
Excerpt of a 14,560-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.