The Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma case in 1954 revolved around a law that restricted the fitting and duplication of eyeglasses to licensed optometrists or ophthalmologists, barring optical companies from doing so. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Williamson, upholding the constitutionality of this Oklahoma state law. Lee Optical challenged the law as an infringement on their right to conduct business but was rejected by the court which held that it is within a state's power to regulate businesses for public welfare reasons. The decision set a precedent known as "rational basis review," where if any conceivable rationale could justify legislation related to economic regulation or social welfare, then courts should defer to legislative judgment.

In the dissenting opinion for Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Justice Douglas argued that the law in question was not a legitimate exercise of state power to protect public health and safety but rather an attempt to suppress competition. He contended that there was no rational connection between requiring opticians to obtain prescriptions before fitting or duplicating lenses and protecting public welfare. Instead, he saw it as a way for ophthalmologists and optometrists to monopolize certain aspects of eye care at the expense of consumers who would have fewer options and potentially higher costs. He believed this kind of economic protectionism did not serve any valid governmental purpose and thus violated equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.