SUTH DAKOTA V. WAYFAIR, Inc

1531 Words7 Pages
Opinion of the Court
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 17-494 – Exam No. XXXXX
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA v.WAYFAIR, INC., ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
JUSTICE MARCUM delivered the opinion of the Court.
INTRODUCTION
Today, the petitioner asks this Court to review and overturn our stare decisis in a case this Court decided in 1997in Quill Corporation. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992). Most of the time the decisions of our Court are final and are never revisited. There are two ways to overturn a decision of this Court. One way is through a Constitutional Amendment and the other way is when our Court members decide to overturn our previous decision . A Constitutional Amendment requires a two-thirds vote of
…show more content…
We have never held that "a State may impose the duty of use tax collection and payment upon a seller whose only connection with customers in the State is by common carrier or the United States mail." Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340, 74 S. Ct. 535, 98 L. Ed. 744, 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2277. We applied this rule in National Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue of Illinois, 386 U.S. 753 (1967), when we held that the dormant commerce clause prohibited States from requiring cataloging retailers from collecting sales taxes from state residents who purchased merchandise from these retailers unless the catalogue retailer was “physically present” in the State. Id. Under the provisions of a Maryland use tax statute, which required the vendor to collect and remit the tax, a Delaware corporation was held liable by the Maryland state courts for the tax on all goods sold directly to inhabitants of Maryland at the corporation's store in Delaware, however delivered. No orders by mail or telephone were taken. However, the vendor's advertising with Delaware papers and radio stations reached the notice of Maryland inhabitants; its occasional sales circulars mailed to all former customers included customers in Maryland; it delivered some purchases to purchasers in…show more content…
In 1992, the Supreme Court in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota issued an order overruling part of the case. The court held that "Thus, to the extent that this Court's decisions have indicated that the Clause requires a physical presence in a State, they are overruled." That case slightly distinguished itself from Bellas Hess by ruling that physical presence was not necessary for a state to impose a duty to collect under the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution, but physical presence was still necessary for a state's use tax on a foreign vendor under the Dormant Commerce Clause of the US

More about SUTH DAKOTA V. WAYFAIR, Inc

Open Document