Select a Chapter to start the quiz.
In Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955), the Supreme Court heard a substantive due process challenge to an Oklahoma law that said that opticians could only grind lenses and fit eyeglasses when presented with a prescription from an ophthalmologist or an optometrist. The law was challenged as unreasonable, unwise, and wasteful. The Supreme Court ________.
upheld the law saying that questions about the wisdom or need for a particular law should be answered by the legislature and not the courts. Thus, challenges to such laws should be made through the electoral process and not through lawsuits
struck down the law explaining that although the relevance of substantive due process had declined, it still barred states from enacting regulatory laws without sufficient evidence demonstrating the need for such regulation
struck down the law saying that the state had failed to show that it had a compelling state interest in passing such legislation
upheld the law, concluding that the state had satisfied its obligations under the compelling state interest test
