The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Wednesday, March 2, 1955
Decision: Monday, March 28, 1955
Issues: Economic Activity, State Regulation of Business

Advocates

Not available

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

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."

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 8 votes for Williamson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Equal Protection
Did not participate
Harlan
Wrote the majority opinion
Douglas
Voted with the majority
Black
Voted with the majority
Warren
Voted with the majority
Clark
Voted with the majority
Frankfurter
Voted with the majority
Minton
Voted with the majority
Burton
Voted with the majority
Reed
Full Opinion by Justice William O. Douglas

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, 348 U.S. 483 (1955),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1954/1954_184/>
(last visited ).