Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf
Page Number: 35

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

3 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

jamin, 328 U. S. 408, 424–425 (1946).

In Quill, this Court emphasized that the decision to hew
to the physical-presence rule on stare decisis grounds was
“made  easier  by  the  fact  that  the  underlying  issue  is  not 
only one that Congress may be better qualified to resolve, 
but  also  one  that  Congress  has  the  ultimate  power  to 
resolve.”  504  U. S.,  at  318  (footnote  omitted).  Even  as-
suming we had gone astray in Bellas Hess, the “very fact”
of  Congress’s  superior  authority  in  this  realm  “g[a]ve  us
pause  and  counsel[ed]  withholding  our  hand.”    Quill,  504 
U. S.,  at  318  (alterations  omitted).    We  postulated  that
“the  better  part  of  both  wisdom  and  valor  [may  be]  to 
respect  the  judgment  of  the  other  branches  of  the  Gov-
ernment.”  Id., at 319; see id., at 320 (Scalia, J., concurring
in  part  and  concurring  in  judgment)  (recognizing  that 
stare decisis has “special force” in the dormant Commerce
Clause context due to Congress’s “final say over regulation 
of  interstate  commerce”).  The  Court  thus  left  it  to  Con-
gress  “to  decide  whether,  when,  and  to  what  extent  the 
States  may  burden  interstate  mail-order  concerns  with  a 
duty to collect use taxes.”  Id., at 318 (majority opinion). 

II 

This  is  neither  the  first,  nor  the  second,  but  the  third 
time  this  Court  has  been  asked  whether  a  State  may 
obligate  sellers  with  no  physical  presence  within  its  bor-
ders to collect tax on sales to residents.  Whatever salience 
the  adage  “third  time’s  a  charm”  has  in  daily  life,  it  is  a
If  stare 
poor  guide  to  Supreme  Court  decisionmaking. 
decisis applied with special force in Quill, it should be an 
even  greater  impediment  to  overruling  precedent  now, 
particularly since this Court in Quill “tossed [the ball] into
Congress’s  court,  for  acceptance  or  not  as  that  branch 
elects.”  Kimble, 576 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8); see Quill, 
504  U. S.,  at  318  (“Congress  is  now  free  to  decide”  the 
circumstances in which “the States may burden interstate