Question

In Williamson v. Lee Optical Co. (1955) the Supreme Court heard a substantive due process challenge to an Oklahoma law that said that an opticians could grind lenses and fit eyeglasses only when presented with a prescription from an ophthalmologist or an optometrist. The law was challenged as unreasonable, unwise, and wasteful. The Supreme Court _______.
A. 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;. T thus, challenges to such laws should be made through the electoral process and not through lawsuits
B. 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
C. struck down the law, saying that the state had failed to show that it had a compelling state interest in passing such legislation
D. upheld the law, concluding that the state had satisfied its obligations under the compelling state interest test

Answer

This answer is hidden. It contains 1 characters.