South Dakota v. Wayfair (Decided June 21, 2018)
Supreme Court grants a field day for state tax policymakers.
States have been trying to get a piece of the $28 billion online retail industry for years. And today, the Supreme Court gave them a major win.
Before today, states were prohibited from collecting tax on many online sales. As long the seller did not have a "physical presence" in the state, the transaction couldn't be taxed. Even when the company delivered massive amounts of goods to consumers in the state.
The "physical presence rule" came out of a 1992 Supreme Court case, Quill v. North Dakota. Quill had interpreted the Constitutional limits of state taxation. At the time, physical presence was a sensible limit to the Justices. But 1992 was a different day than today.
In recognizing the changed nature of commerce since the Internet Revolution, the Supreme Court overruled Quill.
The court said "extensive virtual presence" is sufficient to satisfy the Constitutional requirements.
What happens now?
States likely will begin collecting taxes on many more online transactions - especially those large businesses with "extensive virtual presences." South Dakota's opponents in the case (Wayfair, Overstock and Newegg), for example, will be among them. Of course, that means the company passes the taxes on by charging it to customers.
However, some major online retailers are already paying sales taxes around the nation. Amazon, for example, fought states for years on this issue and finally threw in the towel. Walmart and Target also comply with sales tax requirements for their online orders because they each have a "physical presence" in every state (in case you didn't notice).
On the other side, however, is a major benefit to states. Being able to tap into increased tax revenue, states will gain a significant amount of money to spend on general budget items like public schools, administrative departments and social programs.
The Court's opinion is here.
View recent reports:
The NRA sued New York and Governor Cuomo. This infographic explains each side’s First Amendment argument.
Infographic analyzing all Supreme Court cases of the 2017-2018 term by legal subject area and containing links to infographics explaining each decision.
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has expressed views in line with Scalia’s on the EPA’s ability to regulate on climate change. With Kennedy out, see how the Court’s positions could change.
Learn about administrative agency power and how conservative and liberal viewpoints on regulation relate to it.
Learn about the Flores Settlement: the law setting standards on child detention.
On July 3, 2018 the Trump administration reversed Obama-era guidelines on using race in school admissions policies. Learn the legal background of the policy change in our infographic.
Florida’s water rights case against Georgia can continue. It should not be dismissed for “redressability.”
States cannot require public sector employees to pay union fees.
The California notice requirements affecting women’s health clinics are likely to violate the First Amendment.
Trump’s third version of the travel ban is not likely to violate federal law or the Constitution. The 9th Circuit’s decision halting the order is reversed.
Conservative Justices prevail in interpreting the Second Amendment. The ruling determined D.C.’s gun control laws were unconstitutional.
The Sherman Act does not prohibit the Amex contract with the merchants because Ohio et al. have not shown anticompetitive effects on cardholders.
Only one of the Texas voting districts is an impermissible racial gerrymander.
The Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction and judgeship in the court martial system.
Double Jeopardy (5th Amendment) does not prohibit the second trial against Currier because Currier agreed to split his case into two trials.