Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf
Page Number: 39

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

7 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

in a broad range of new markets.

A  good  reason  to  leave  these  matters  to  Congress  is 
that legislators may more directly consider the competing
interests  at  stake.  Unlike  this  Court,  Congress  has  the
flexibility  to  address  these  questions  in  a  wide  variety  of 
ways.  As  we  have  said  in  other  dormant  Commerce 
Clause  cases,  Congress  “has  the  capacity  to  investigate 
and  analyze  facts  beyond  anything  the  Judiciary  could 
match.”  General Motors Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U. S. 278, 309 
(1997);  see  Department  of  Revenue  of  Ky.  v.  Davis,  553 
U. S. 328, 356 (2008).

Here,  after  investigation,  Congress  could  reasonably 
decide  that  current  trends  might  sufficiently  expand  tax 
revenues,  obviating  the  need  for  an  abrupt  policy  shift 
with potentially adverse consequences for e-commerce.  Or 
Congress might decide that the benefits of allowing States
to secure additional tax revenue outweigh any foreseeable
harm  to  e-commerce.  Or  Congress  might  elect  to  accom-
modate these competing interests, by, for example, allow-
ing States to tax Internet sales by remote retailers only if 
revenue  from  such  sales  exceeds  some  set  amount  per 
year.  See  Goodlatte  Brief  12–14  (providing  varied  exam-
ples  of  how  Congress  could  address  sales  tax  collection). 
In any event, Congress can focus directly on current policy
concerns  rather  than  past  legal  mistakes.    Congress  can
also  provide  a  nuanced  answer  to  the  troubling  question
whether any change will have retroactive effect.

An  erroneous  decision  from  this  Court  may  well
have  been  an  unintended  factor  contributing  to  the 
growth of e-commerce.  See, e.g., W. Taylor, Who’s Writing
the Book on Web Business? Fast Company (Oct. 31, 1996), 
https: // www.fastcompany.com / 27309 / whos-writing-book-
web-business.  The  Court  is  of  course  correct  that  the 
Nation’s economy has changed dramatically since the time 
that  Bellas  Hess  and  Quill  roamed  the  earth.    I  fear  the 
Court today is compounding its past error by trying to fix