Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Williamson

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
120 F. Supp. 128 (1954)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state law regulating a trade violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if its provisions are not rationally related to a legitimate public health and welfare purpose. Such a law violates the Equal Protection Clause if it arbitrarily discriminates by treating similarly situated groups differently without a rational basis for the distinction.

Facts:

Lee Optical Company and Carp were dispensing opticians operating businesses in Oklahoma.
Dr. Rips, a licensed ophthalmologist, rented office space for his practice from the Zales Jewelry Company, a retail merchandise store in Tulsa.
Oklahoma enacted House Bill No. 953, a law intended to regulate the field of visual care.
The statute made it illegal for an optician to fit a person's existing lenses into a new frame without a new written prescription from an ophthalmologist or optometrist.
The law also made it illegal for an optician to duplicate a lens without a written prescription.
The statute prohibited any person or business from soliciting the sale of eyeglass frames or other optical appliances through advertising.
Finally, the law forbade any retail merchandise business from renting or leasing space on its premises to any person who performs eye examinations.

Procedural Posture:

Lee Optical Company, Carp, and Dr. Rips filed suit against Oklahoma state officials in the United States District Court.
The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that portions of Oklahoma's new visual care statute were unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs also requested a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from enforcing the challenged statutory provisions.
Pursuant to federal law, a three-judge district court panel was convened to hear the case.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an Oklahoma statute regulating the business of opticians and optometrists by requiring prescriptions for fitting or duplicating lenses, banning the advertising of eyeglass frames, and prohibiting optometrists from leasing space in retail stores, violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Wallace, District Judge

Yes. The challenged provisions of the Oklahoma statute violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment because they impose arbitrary and irrational restrictions on lawful businesses. The requirements are not reasonably related to any legitimate public health objective. First, requiring a prescription to fit old lenses into new frames or to duplicate existing lenses is an arbitrary interference with the optician's trade, as these are purely mechanical, artisan tasks that do not require professional medical judgment and bear no rational relation to public health. Second, this prescription requirement violates the Equal Protection Clause because the law exempts sellers of ready-to-wear glasses, a group that is similarly situated and poses an equal or greater risk to public eye health. Third, prohibiting the advertising of eyeglass frames is an unconstitutional intrusion into a purely mercantile field, as frames are merchandise and their advertisement has no detrimental effect on public vision. Finally, forbidding an eye examiner from leasing space in a retail store is an arbitrary interference with the right to contract that is not reasonably adapted to the state's legitimate goal of preventing the 'corporate practice' of optometry, as a professional's location is irrelevant to their integrity or employment status.

Dissenting - Murrah, Circuit Judge

No, as to the advertising and leasing provisions. While the court is correct to invalidate the prescription requirement for duplicating and fitting lenses, it should have upheld the state's prohibitions on advertising frames and leasing space in retail stores. These provisions are a rational exercise of the state's police power to regulate the entire field of visual care and prevent its over-commercialization. Eyeglass frames are not merely merchandise; they are an integral part of visual care, and banning their advertisement is a legitimate way to prevent 'bait advertising' that undermines professional standards. Likewise, the prohibition on leasing space in retail stores is directly related to preventing covert 'corporate practice' arrangements, where commercial interests can improperly influence professional judgment. The court's decision creates a glaring loophole in the legislative scheme and constitutes an unwarranted judicial interference with the state's power to protect public health.

Analysis:

This district court decision represents a stringent application of the rational basis test under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses to strike down economic regulations. The court declined to defer to the legislature's stated health and safety justifications, instead finding the specific means chosen to be arbitrary and not reasonably related to the purported goals. This ruling established a precedent for challenging regulations that appear to provide economic protection for one professional group (optometrists) at the expense of another (opticians) under the guise of public welfare. The decision emphasizes that even under rational basis review, a law's classifications and restrictions must have a 'fair and substantial relation' to the legislative object and cannot be unduly oppressive.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Williamson (1954)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"