Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf
Page Number: 36.0

4 

SOUTH DAKOTA v. WAYFAIR, INC. 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

. . . concerns with a duty to collect use taxes”). 

Congress  has  in  fact  been  considering  whether  to  alter 
the  rule  established  in  Bellas  Hess  for  some  time.    See 
Addendum  to  Brief  for  Four  United  States  Senators  as 
Amici  Curiae  1–4  (compiling  efforts  by  Congress  between 
2001  and  2017  to  pass  legislation  respecting  interstate 
sales tax collection); Brief for Rep. Bob Goodlatte et al. as 
Amici  Curiae  20–23  (Goodlatte  Brief)  (same).  Three  bills 
addressing  the  issue  are  currently  pending.    See  Market-
place Fairness Act of 2017, S. 976, 115th Cong., 1st Sess. 
(2017);  Remote  Transactions  Parity  Act  of  2017,  H. R.
2193,  115th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.  (2017);  No  Regulation  With-
out Representation Act, H. R. 2887, 115th Cong., 1st Sess.
(2017).  Nothing  in  today’s  decision  precludes  Congress
from  continuing  to  seek  a  legislative  solution.    But  by 
suddenly  changing  the  ground  rules,  the  Court  may  have 
waylaid Congress’s consideration of the issue.  Armed with 
today’s decision, state officials can be expected to redirect
their attention from working with Congress on a national
solution,  to  securing  new  tax  revenue  from  remote  retail-
ers.  See, e.g., Brief for Sen. Ted Cruz et al. as Amici Curiae 
10–11  (“Overturning  Quill  would  undo  much  of  Con- 
gress’ work to find a workable national compromise under 
the Commerce Clause.”).

The Court proceeds with an inexplicable sense of urgency.
It  asserts  that  the  passage  of  time  is  only  increasing
the  need  to  take  the  extraordinary  step  of  overruling 
Bellas  Hess  and  Quill:  “Each  year,  the  physical  presence
rule  becomes  further  removed  from  economic  reality  and 
results  in  significant  revenue  losses  to  the  States.”    Ante, 
at 10.  The factual predicates for that assertion include a
Government  Accountability  Office  (GAO)  estimate  that,
under  the  physical-presence  rule,  States  lose  billions  of 
dollars  annually  in  sales  tax  revenue.    See  ante,  at  2,  19 
(citing  GAO,  Report  to  Congressional  Requesters:  Sales 
Taxes,  States  Could  Gain  Revenue  from  Expanded  Au-