Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash­
ington,  D. C.  20543,  of  any  typographical  or  other  formal  errors,  in  order
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 17–494 
_________________ 

SOUTH DAKOTA, PETITIONER v. WAYFAIR, INC., 

ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF

 SOUTH DAKOTA
 

[June 21, 2018] 

JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court. 
When  a  consumer  purchases  goods  or  services,  the
consumer’s  State  often  imposes  a  sales  tax.    This  case 
requires  the  Court  to  determine  when  an  out-of-state
seller  can  be  required  to  collect  and  remit  that  tax.    All 
concede  that  taxing  the  sales  in  question  here  is  lawful. 
The question is whether the out-of-state seller can be held 
responsible  for  its  payment,  and  this  turns  on  a  proper 
interpretation  of  the  Commerce  Clause,  U. S.  Const., 
Art. I, §8, cl. 3.

In  two  earlier  cases  the  Court  held  that  an  out-of-state 

seller’s liability to collect and remit the tax to the consum­
er’s  State  depended  on  whether  the  seller  had  a  physical 
presence  in  that  State,  but  that  mere  shipment  of  goods 
into the consumer’s State, following an order from a cata­
log,  did  not  satisfy  the  physical  presence  requirement. 
National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 
386  U. S.  753  (1967);  Quill  Corp.  v.  North  Dakota,  504 
U. S.  298  (1992).    The  Court  granted  certiorari  here  to
reconsider the scope and validity of the physical presence 
rule mandated by those cases.