On October 31, 2008, the Taiwan Justices of the Constitutional Court issued Judicial Yuan (J.Y.) Interpretation No. 649, which proclaimed that it 'is unconstitutional for the Physically and Mentally Disabled Citizens Protection Act to restrict massage work to vision-impaired individuals. Such provision shall be invalid no Later than three years subsequent to the issuance of this Interpretation'. Their reasoning was that, as the knowledge and capability of many vision-impaired people gradually increases, their choice of occupation will also increase, and, thus, the statutory provision in question tends to make the governing authority overlook the fact that the talents of vision-impaired are not limited to the massage business alone. Nearly thirty years after the Act’s promulgation, according to the J.Y. interpretation, the social-economic condition of the vision-impaired has not seen any significant improvement. There is no substantial nexus between the objectives and the means; therefore, the provision contradicts the meaning and intent of Article 7 of the Constitution on the right of equal protection. However, these statements by the J.Y. were based on erroneous assumptions that contradict the historical facts. This study will show that restriction of massage business to the vision-impaired, or the cancel of it, came about not in order to protect the welfare and labor rights of the vision-impaired in Taiwan, but, rather, as discriminatory judicial means of systematic exclusion and exploitation.