Robert J. Wright brought this declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of the Oregon statute prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law. He contends that the statute1 is impermissibly vague and contradictory. After Wright had filed three successive complaints in the district court, the magistrate recommended that the case be dismissed. The court dismissed the action for want of jurisdiction. The action should have been dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); however, we affirm the judgment of dismissal.

In an action nearly identical to this one, the Arizona statutes forbidding the unauthorized practice of law were sustained by the state Supreme Court in Hackin v. State, 102 Ariz. 218, 427 P.2d 910, appeal dismissed, 389 U.S. 143, 88 S. Ct. 325, 19 L. Ed. 2d 347 reh. denied, 389 U.S. 1060, 88 S. Ct. 766, 19 L. Ed. 2d 866 (1967). The Supreme Court dismissed Hackin's appeal for lack of a substantial federal question. Hackin v. Arizona, 389 U.S. 143, 88 S. Ct. 325, 19 L. Ed. 2d 347 reh. denied, 389 U.S. 1060, 88 S. Ct. 766, 19 L. Ed. 2d 866 (1967). Summary dismissals for want of a substantial federal question are decisions on the merits that bind lower courts until subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court suggest otherwise. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 334-45, 95 S. Ct. 2281, 2289, 45 L. Ed. 2d 223 (1975). See also McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Serv. Comm'n, 424 U.S. 645, 646, 96 S. Ct. 1154, 1155, 47 L. Ed. 2d 366 (1976) (precedential value of a dismissal for want of a substantial federal question extends beyond the facts of the particular case to all similar cases). The Oregon statute is not unconstitutional.2

Affirmed.