Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
348 U.S. 483 (1955)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
An Oklahoma state law made it unlawful for any person not licensed as an optometrist or ophthalmologist in the state to fit lenses to a face or fashion existing lenses into a frame unless given a prescription by a state-licensed optometrist or ophthalmologist. Lee Optical (plaintiff) of Oklahoma brought suit in district court against Williamson (defendant), the official charged with enforcing the Oklahoma state law, on the grounds that it violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court upheld as constitutional the aspects of the law that prevented an unlicensed person from providing eye examinations, but it held unconstitutional the requirement of a prescription for an optician to simply place old lenses into new frames. The district court reasoned that an optician’s performance of this task did not pose a significant health and safety risk to the public, and thus the Oklahoma’s regulation of this activity was not reasonably and rationally related to a health and safety interest. Williamson appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Douglas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
