National Ass'n of Optometrists & Opticians v. Harris
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11965
9th Cir.2012Background
- California bans and regulations prohibit dispensing opticians and optical companies from offering prescription eyewear at the same location as eye examinations or advertising such availability.
- Statutes/challenged regulations include Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 655, 2556, 3103 and Cal. Code Regs. tit. 16, 1399.251, 1514.
- Plaintiffs National Association of Optometrists & Opticians, LensCrafters, Inc., and Eye Care Centers of America, Inc. allege a dormant Commerce Clause violation.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the State on remand after previous appellate reversal; no genuine factual disputes remained.
- The court addressed whether non-discriminatory regulations can still burden interstate commerce under Pike and related lineage of cases.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the challenged laws are not discriminatory and do not impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the laws discriminate against interstate commerce on their face, purpose, or effect? | Plaintiffs contend the rules favor in-state providers and restrict out-of-state firms. | State argues the laws are non-discriminatory and neutral in operation. | No facial or purpose/effect discrimination found. |
| Do the laws impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce under Pike (undue burden vs. local benefits)? | Regulations shift market share and profits to in-state providers, burdening interstate commerce. | Regulations are not a significant burden; Exxon controls and the flow of interstate goods is not hindered. | No substantial burden on interstate commerce established. |
| Should the court weigh the statutes' benefits or consider alternatives when non-discriminatory? | Benefits should be weighed and less restrictive alternatives examined. | If no significant burden exists, benefits/alternatives are unnecessary to reassess. | Benefits need not be weighed; no significant burden means no Pike-type inquiry. |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Md., 437 U.S. 117 (1978) (non-discriminatory regulation not burdening interstate commerce; protects interstate market)
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970) (balance of local benefits vs. burden on interstate commerce; 'clearly excessive' test)
- South-Central Timber Dev., Inc. v. Wunnicke, 467 U.S. 82 (1984) (dormant Commerce Clause concerns; protectionism)
- CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 481 U.S. 69 (1987) (non-discriminatory regulation and need for uniform regulation context)
- Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co. v. Cottrell, 424 U.S. 366 (1976) (permissible local interests with burdens balanced against local benefits)
- West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, 512 U.S. 186 (1994) (discriminatory purpose/effect; tariff-like effect invalid)
- Clover Leaf Creamery Co. v. Minnesota, 449 U.S. 456 (1981) (income shifting vs. flow of goods; discriminatory effects and Pike analysis)
- Raymond Motor Transp. Inc. v. Rice, 434 U.S. 429 (1978) (regulation impairing interstate movement of goods must be scrutinized)