Friedman v. Roger

440 U.S. 1 (1979)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Texas law prohibited the practice of optometry under a trade name. It also required that four of six members of the Texas Optometry Board be members of the Texas Optometric Association. Rogers (P) an advocate of the commercial practice of optometry and a member of the Board filed a suit against the five other members of the Board seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from enforcement of the composition of the Board and the prohibition of the practice of optometry under a trade name. P claimed he was deprived of equal protection and due process of law because he was eligible for only two of the six board seats and that the prohibition of trade name practices is not extended to ophthalmologists. The District Court found that the law was reasonably related to the State's purpose of ensuring enforcement of the Act and was therefore constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The court also ruled that unfair treatment before the Board could be settled when and if the problem arose. In holding that § 5.13(d) infringes First Amendment rights, the District Court relied primarily on Bates and Virginia Pharmacy Board. The court found specifically that the Texas State Optical [TSO] name has come to communicate to the consuming public information as to certain standards of price and quality, and availability of particular routine services, and rejected the argument that the TSO name misleads the public as to the identity of the optometrists with whom it deals. Balancing the constitutional interests in the commercial speech in question against the State's interest in regulating it, the District Court held that the prohibition of the use of trade names by § 5.13(d) is an unconstitutional restriction of the 'free flow of commercial information.'