Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

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

1 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

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] 

CHIEF  JUSTICE  ROBERTS,  with  whom  JUSTICE  BREYER, 
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting. 
In  National  Bellas  Hess,  Inc.  v.  Department  of  Revenue 
of Ill., 386 U. S. 753 (1967), this Court held that, under the 
dormant  Commerce  Clause,  a  State  could  not  require
retailers  without  a  physical  presence  in  that  State  to 
collect taxes on the sale of goods to its residents.  A quar-
ter century later, in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U. S. 
298 (1992), this Court was invited to overrule Bellas Hess 
but declined to do so.  Another quarter century has passed, 
and  another  State  now  asks  us  to  abandon  the  physical-
presence rule.  I would decline that invitation as well. 

I agree that Bellas Hess was wrongly decided, for many
of  the  reasons  given  by  the  Court.  The  Court  argues  in
favor  of  overturning  that  decision  because  the  “Internet’s
prevalence  and  power  have  changed  the  dynamics  of  the 
national  economy.”    Ante,  at  18.  But  that  is  the  very
reason I oppose discarding the physical-presence rule.  E-
commerce has grown into a significant and vibrant part of
our national economy against the backdrop of established 
rules, including the physical-presence rule.  Any alteration
to  those  rules  with  the  potential  to  disrupt  the  develop-
ment of such a critical  segment of the economy should be 
undertaken by Congress.  The Court should not act on this 
important  question  of  current  economic  policy,  solely  to