Legal Document

348 U.S. 483 75 Supreme Court Reporter 461 99 L.Ed. 563 Mae Q. WILLIAMSON, Attorney General of the State Oklahoma, et al., Appellants,v.LEE OPTICAL OF OKLAHOMA, Inc., al. LEE Appellants, versus Mac Nos. 184 and 185. Argued March 2, 1955. Decided 28, Rehearing Denied May 9, See 349 925, 657. Mr. James C. Harkin, Oklahoma City, Okl., for Williamson, Mr.Dick or Haw. Hawai‘i Reports KFH45 A2 Woods, Kansas Mo., Lee Optical, Philip baron Perlman, Washington, D.C., American Optometric Ass'n, amicus curiae. Herbert Atlantic Bergson, Guild Prescription Opticians America, Justice DOUGLAS delivered opinion Court. 1 This suit was instituted in District to have an law, 59 Okl.Stat.Ann. §§ 941—947, Okl.Laws 1953, chapter 13, 1—8, declared unconstitutional enjoin state officials from enforcing it, 28 United States Code KF62 2201, 2202, 2281, Annotated KF65 U5 reason that it allegedly violated various provisions Federal Constitution. The matter heard by a three judges, as required § 2281. That court held certain law unconstitutional. 120 F.Supp. 128. case is here appeal, 1253, 1253. 2 portions sections Act. First, invalid under Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment which make unlawful any person not licensed optometrist ophthalmologist fit lenses face duplicate replace into frames other optical appliances, except upon written prescriptive authority optometrist.1 3 An duly physician who specializes care eyes. examines eyes refractive error, recognizes (but does treat) diseases eye, fills prescriptions eyeglasses. optician artisan qualified grind lenses, fill prescriptions, frames. 4 effect forbid fitting duplicating without prescription optometrist. In practical effect, means no can old glasses new supply lens, whether be lens one lost broken prescription. conceded competence police power regulate examination But rebelled at notion could require 'to take place them then completed spectacles eyeglass wearer.' F.Supp., page 135. It such requirement 'reasonably rationally related health welfare people.' Id., 136. found through mechanical devices ordinary skills fragment thereof, measure its power, reduce terms. 'Although on this precise issue duplication, legislature instant regulation dealing with public interest, particular chosen are neither reasonably necessary nor end sought achieved.' 137. was, accordingly, provision arbitrarily interfering optician's right do business. 5 We think due process question answered principle Roschen Ward, 279 337, 49 336, 73 722, upheld New York statute making sell eyeglasses retail store, unless were charge personal attendance. said, '* * wherever requirements act stop, there doubt presence superintendence specialist tend diminish evil.' 339, 336. 6 may exact needless, wasteful many cases. legislature, courts, balance advantages disadvantages requirement. appears cases easily reference also contain directive data regard face. some directions contained essential, if fitted so correct defects vision alleviate eye condition. might concluded frequency occasions when sufficient justify Likewise, necessary. needed often enough every case. Or examinations critical, only correction but detection latent ailments diseases, change duplication should accompanied medical expert. To sure, present time changed duplicated. For file optician, he go ahead lenses. need respect logically consistent aims constitutional. evil hand correction, thought legislative rational way it. 7 day gone uses strike down laws, regulatory business industrial conditions, because they unwise, improvident, out harmony school thought. Nebbia People York, 291 502, 54 505, 89 Law 1469; West Coast Hotel company Parrish, 300 379, 57 578, 81 703; Olsen Nebraska ex rel. Western Reference & Bond 313 236, 61 862, 85 1305; Lincoln Labor Union Number 19129, A.F. L. Northwestern Iron Metal Co., 335 525, 69 251, 93 212; Daniel Family Sec. Life insurance 336 220, 550, 632; Day-Brite Lighting, Missouri, 342 421, 72 405, 96 469. emphasize again what Chief Waite said Munn Illinois, 94 113, 134, 24 77, 'For protection against abuses legislatures people must resort polls, courts.' 8 Secondly, Equal Protection subject opticians system exempt, Act2 does, all sellers ready-to-wear glasses. problem classification perennial one, admitting doctrinaire definition. Evils same field different dimensions proportions, requiring remedies. think. Tigner Texas, 310 141, 60 879, 84 1124. reform step time, addressing itself phase seems most acute mind. Semler Oregon Board Dental Examiners, 294 608, 55 570, 79 1086. select apply remedy there, neglecting others. Sash 538, 258, 222. prohibition goes further than invidious discrimination. cannot say point has been reached here. record shows, branch loom large problems distinct branch. 9 Third, unconstitutional, violative Amendment, portion makes solicit sale frames, mountings appliances.'3 advertising relating 'rationally welfare', 140, therefore within principles supra. intrude 'into mercantile casually visual public' restrict 'an activity detrimentally affect 140—141.4 10 frame, considered isolation, piece merchandise. frame used Judge Murrah dissent below; lenses; pertaining human enter health. Therefore, conclude effectively would other. both where limited even abolished interest. advertiser using his ads bring customers will buy If advertisement controlled, come restraints; see constitutional why treat deal members profession use merchandising methods obtaining customers. 11 Fourth, Act reads follows: 12 'No person, firm, corporation engaged retailing merchandise general shall rent space, sublease departments, otherwise permit purporting occupy space store.' 13 us footing denial corporations practice dentistry. supra, 611, 571. attempt free profession, great extent possible, taints commercialism. certainly easy store merely front establishment. case, opportunity nexus too safety, doctor allowed inside store. Moreover, deemed important effective restricted geographical locations temptations Geographical location consideration program raise treatment strictly professional level. relation objective beyond bounds. 14 What we dispose appeal 185 conclusion spectacles, eyeglasses, prisms media 15 contentions urged appellants merit. 16 Affirmed part reversed part. 17 HARLAN took decision Section 'It corporation, company, partnership Chapter Title 59, Statutes 1951, fit, adjust, adapt, manner prisms, appliances duplicate, prescribed, fitted, adjusted intended aid give training designed vision, represent hold himself being acts listed Section, persons Chapters 1951 prescription, authorize supplier interpret accordance therewith measure, prepare, dispense, adjust glasses, tinted appurtenances thereto, ocular anomalies eye; continue aforesaid provided however, writing remain responsible full furnished person. Provided prevent repairs glasses.' 11, Okl.Stat. provides licensing ophthalmologists doctors. certification optometrists. mountings, devices, services, radio, window display, television, telephone directory display advertisement, advertisement; method baiting, persuading, enticing buying correction. Provided, render newspaper liable publishing vendor commodity material; anything ethical education publicity legally groups violate presently existing laws proper ethical, notices. Nothing prohibit equipped convexspherical sunglasses plano goggles sold established places selection discretion purchaser.' note said: 'Advertising directed exclusively feature wear deleterious public, inasmuch influence prospective wearer (a already examined professional) mere 'The dispensing merchant particular, divested substantial pretext deprivation health.' 142.

Classification Label: 7