WILLIAMSON v. LEE OPTICAL OF OKLAHOMA
Term:
- 1950-1959
Location:
Lee Optical Co.
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, bringing a suit against the state Attorney General, Mac Q. Williamson.
Question
Did the Oklahoma law violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusion
Decision: 8 votes for Williamson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection
Legal provision: Equal Protection
In a unanimous decision, 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." The Court emphasized that "[t]he 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."
Javascript is required to view this map.
Cite this Page
WILLIAMSON v. LEE OPTICAL OF OKLAHOMA. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 19 May 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1954/1954_184>.
WILLIAMSON v. LEE OPTICAL OF OKLAHOMA, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1954/1954_184 (last visited May 19, 2013).
"WILLIAMSON v. LEE OPTICAL OF OKLAHOMA," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed May 19, 2013, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1954/1954_184.