Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2017 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

SOUTH DAKOTA v. WAYFAIR, INC., ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH DAKOTA 

No. 17–494.  Argued April 17, 2018—Decided June 21, 2018 

South Dakota, like many States, taxes the retail sales of goods and ser-
vices in the State.  Sellers are required to collect and remit the tax to
the State, but if they do not then in-state consumers are responsible
for  paying  a  use  tax  at  the  same  rate.    Under  National  Bellas  Hess, 
Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 386 U. S. 753, and Quill Corp. v. 
North  Dakota,  504  U. S.  298,  South  Dakota  may  not  require  a  busi-
ness that has no physical presence in the State to collect its sales tax.
Consumer  compliance  rates  are  notoriously  low,  however,  and  it  is 
estimated that Bellas Hess and Quill cause South Dakota to lose be-
tween $48 and $58 million annually.  Concerned about the erosion of 
its sales tax base and corresponding loss of critical funding for state
and  local  services,  the  South  Dakota  Legislature  enacted  a  law  re-
quiring  out-of-state  sellers  to  collect  and  remit  sales  tax  “as  if  the
seller  had  a  physical  presence  in  the  State.”    The  Act  covers  only 
sellers that, on an annual basis, deliver more than $100,000 of goods 
or services into the State or engage in 200 or more separate transac-
tions  for  the  delivery  of  goods  or  services  into  the  State.    Respond-
ents,  top  online  retailers  with  no  employees  or  real  estate  in  South
Dakota, each meet the Act’s minimum sales or transactions require-
ment, but do not collect the State’s sales tax.  South Dakota filed suit 
in state court, seeking a declaration that  the Act’s requirements are
valid  and  applicable  to  respondents  and  an  injunction  requiring  re-
spondents  to  register  for  licenses  to  collect  and  remit  the  sales  tax.
Respondents sought summary judgment, arguing that the Act is un-
constitutional.    The  trial  court  granted  their  motion.    The  State  Su-
preme  Court  affirmed  on  the  ground  that  Quill  is  controlling  prece-
dent. 

Held: Because the physical presence rule of Quill is unsound and incor-
rect, Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U. S. 298, and National Bellas