US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

The North Dakota Supreme Court, relying on Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U. S. 105, held unconstitutional a state statute under which respondent had been denied a pharmacy operating permit, requiring that an applicant for such a permit be "a registered pharmacist in good standing" or

"a corporation or association, the majority stock in which is owned by registered pharmacists in good standing, actively and regularly employed in and responsible for the management, supervision, and operation of such pharmacy."

The court remanded the case so that petitioner Board could conduct an administrative hearing "sans the constitutional issue," on respondent's alleged failure to meet certain structural and safety standards on which petitioner had also rested its permit denial.

Held:

1. This Court does not lack jurisdiction to review the State Supreme Court's judgment, which is "final" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1257, for it is not apparent how petitioner Board would be able to preserve the constitutional issue now ready for adjudication without defying the State Supreme Court. Pp. 414 U. S. 159-164.

2. The North Dakota statutory requirements for permitting the operation of a pharmacy do not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In enacting the challenged legislation, the State was well within its authority "to legislate against what [it] found to be injurious practices in [its] internal commercial and business affairs," Lincoln Union v. Northwestern Co., 335 U. S. 525, 335 U. S. 536, and this Court will not substitute its own judgment for what the State feels is reasonably necessary to protect the interests of the public. Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, supra, overruled. Pp. 414 U. S. 164-167.

202 N.W.2d 140, reversed and remanded.

DOUGLAS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. chanrobles.com-red

Page 414 U. S. 157