Head v. New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry

Citations: 10 L. Ed. 2d 983; 83 S. Ct. 1759; 374 U.S. 424; 1963 U.S. LEXIS 977Docket: 392

Court: Supreme Court of the United States; June 17, 1963; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion OriginalCombined Opinion AnalysisCombined Opinion OriginalConcurrence Opinion AnalysisConcurrence Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Agnes K. Head, owner of a newspaper, and Permian Basin Radio Corporation, operator of a radio station in Hobbs, New Mexico, appealed a lower court's injunction preventing them from accepting or publishing advertisements from Texas optometrist Abner Roberts, which violated New Mexico law. They contended that the state law imposed an unlawful burden on interstate commerce and that federal law (the Communications Act of 1934) preempted the state's regulation of advertising. The New Mexico statute, specifically Section 67-7-13, prohibits certain practices in optometry, including specific advertising methods and the quoting of prices or discounts for eyeglasses and related products, aiming to protect consumers from misleading advertising. The trial court found the statute applicable, leading to the injunction, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of New Mexico. The Supreme Court ruled that while the injunction affected interstate commerce, it did not constitute an unconstitutional burden, emphasizing that states retain the right to legislate on matters of health and safety, even if such legislation impacts commerce.

Legislation can impact commerce and those engaged in it without being classified as regulation under the Constitution. The New Mexico statute in question is aimed at protecting public health, falling under the police power concept. Such state laws are constitutionally valid as long as they do not discriminate against interstate commerce or disrupt its necessary uniformity. The statute does not favor or discriminate against interstate commerce and does not interfere with areas requiring uniform regulation. The appellants have not identified any conflicting state regulations, and thus the New Mexico statute, which prohibits certain price advertising, does not impose an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.

Regarding the claim that the Federal Communications Act preempts New Mexico's regulation of radio advertising, the validity of this argument cannot be determined by general assertions about federal authority. Instead, it depends on specific circumstances. It must be established whether Congress intended to make its jurisdiction exclusive in this area. State laws are to be upheld unless there is a direct conflict with federal regulations or clear evidence of congressional intent to preempt state law. The federal statute primarily referenced concerns broadcasting licenses, where the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) considers various factors, including advertising content. Although the FCC may issue general advertising regulations, it does not necessarily eliminate state authority over advertising practices. The regulatory power assigned to the FCC does not indicate an intention to override detailed state regulations, especially in traditional areas such as torts or crimes associated with radio advertising.

There is no significant distinction regarding the less 'traditional' statutory violation in question. In the absence of clear legislative intent to preempt state authority, it is concluded that Congress has not removed states from matters of local concern. No conflict has been demonstrated between the state law and the federal regulatory framework, nor does the state law impede the full effectiveness of the federal statute. The Commission has recognized state regulation of advertising as supportive of its regulatory role rather than conflicting with it. The case references Colorado Anti-Discrimination Commission v. Continental Air Lines, affirming that the state statute will not hinder the federal law's objectives as long as the Commission's powers remain unexercised. 

The argument that the state statute undermines business communication between Texas optometrists and residents is dismissed, mirroring the rationale in Railway Express Agency v. New York, which upheld a local ordinance restricting advertising on trucks in interstate commerce. The appellants propose three additional grounds for reversal, all of which are addressed briefly: the claim of property deprivation under the Due Process Clause is countered by Williamson v. Lee Optical Co.; the assertion regarding the Privileges and Immunities Clause is invalidated as it does not grant an unfettered right to conduct business under state regulation; and the argument regarding freedom of speech protections was not raised in state courts nor included in the appeal notice, which limits the court's consideration of this issue according to established rules.