Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf
Page Number: 13

8 

SOUTH DAKOTA v. WAYFAIR, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

create any effect forbidden by the Commerce Clause.”  Id., 
at 285.  After all, “interstate commerce may be required to 
pay  its  fair  share  of  state  taxes.”    D.  H.  Holmes  Co.  v. 
McNamara,  486  U. S.  24,  31  (1988).    The  Court  will  sus­
tain  a  tax  so  long  as  it  (1)  applies  to  an  activity  with  a
substantial  nexus  with  the  taxing  State,  (2)  is  fairly  ap­
portioned,  (3)  does  not  discriminate  against  interstate
commerce, and (4) is fairly related to the services the State 
provides.  See Complete Auto, supra, at 279. 

Before  Complete  Auto,  the  Court  had  addressed  a  chal­
lenge to an Illinois tax that required out-of-state retailers 
to collect and remit taxes on sales made to consumers who 
purchased  goods  for  use  within  Illinois.  Bellas  Hess,  386 
U. S., at 754–755.  The Court held that a mail-order com­
pany  “whose  only  connection  with  customers  in  the  State 
is by common carrier or the United States mail” lacked the 
requisite  minimum  contacts  with  the  State  required  by
both  the  Due  Process  Clause  and  the  Commerce  Clause. 
Id.,  at  758.    Unless  the  retailer  maintained  a  physical
presence  such  as  “retail  outlets,  solicitors,  or  property 
within a State,” the State lacked the power to require that
retailer  to  collect  a  local  use  tax.  Ibid.   The  dissent  dis-
agreed:  “There  should  be  no  doubt  that  this  large-scale, 
systematic, continuous solicitation and exploitation of the 
Illinois  consumer  market  is  a  sufficient  ‘nexus’  to  require 
Bellas Hess to collect from Illinois customers and to remit 
the use tax.”  Id., at 761–762 (opinion of Fortas, J., joined 
by Black and Douglas, JJ.). 

In  1992,  the  Court  reexamined  the  physical  presence 
rule  in  Quill.  That  case  presented  a  challenge  to  North
Dakota’s  “attempt  to  require  an  out-of-state  mail-order
house that has neither outlets nor sales representatives in 
the State to collect and pay a use tax on goods purchased
for  use  within  the  State.”    504  U. S.,  at  301.    Despite  the 
fact  that  Bellas  Hess  linked  due  process  and  the  Com­
merce  Clause  together,  the  Court  in  Quill  overruled  the