Staring down in-state protectionism

by Walter Olson on December 11, 2012

The Supreme Court will consider whether to grant certiorari in the case of National Association of Optometrists & Opticians v. Harris, in which national eyewear companies are challenging a California regulation that works to the benefit of their locally based competitors. The Cato Institute has filed an amicus brief supporting certiorari, as Ilya Shapiro explains:

Under California’s Business and Professions Code, state-licensed optometrists and ophthalmologists are allowed to conduct eye exams and sell glasses at their place of business, while commercial retailers – such as the national eyewear chains represented by the NAOO – are barred from furnishing onsite optometry services. Since consumers have a strong preference for “one stop shopping” – buying their glasses at the same place where they have their eye exams – California’s law gives instate retailers a crucial competitive advantage. Businesses that cannot co-locate their services have quickly vanished from the market.

The Cato brief argues that by putting the out-of-state chains at an artificial regulatory disadvantage, California is violating the Constitution’s dormant Commerce Clause.


1 Chip 12.11.12 at 3:55 pm

Would Cato support a similar argument by, say, a Texas-licensed attorney who wanted to practice law in California state courts without subjecting himself to the California bar?

2 Jack Olson 12.11.12 at 5:09 pm

Chip, the laws of optics are the same in Texas as in California. The statutes and state constitutions, the man-made laws, are different.

3 blhlls 12.12.12 at 3:53 pm

Chip, the law prohibits California optometrists from operating at the same location as the commercial retailer. Those same optometrists are permitted to conduct their own sales activities within the state.

Comments on this entry are closed.