Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

20 

SOUTH DAKOTA v. WAYFAIR, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

See 

browsers.  See 830 Code Mass. Regs. 64H.1.7 (2017).  Ohio 
recently  adopted  a  similar  standard.  See  Ohio Rev. Code 
Ann.  §5741.01(I)(2)(i)  (Lexis  Supp.  2018).  Some  States 
have  enacted  so-called  “click  through”  nexus  statutes,
which  define  nexus  to  include  out-of-state  sellers  that 
contract  with  in-state  residents  who  refer  customers  for 
compensation. 
e.g.,  N. Y.  Tax  Law  Ann. 
§1101(b)(8)(vi)  (West  2017);  Brief  for  Tax  Foundation  as 
Amicus  Curiae  20–22  (listing  21  States  with  similar  stat­
utes).  Others still, like Colorado, have imposed notice and 
reporting  requirements  on  out-of-state  retailers  that  fall
just short of actually collecting and remitting the tax.  See 
Direct Marketing, 814 F. 3d, at 1133 (discussing Colo. Rev.
Stat.  §39–21–112(3.5));  Brief  for  Tax  Foundation  24–26 
(listing nine States with similar statutes).  Statutes of this 
sort are likely to embroil courts in technical and arbitrary
disputes about what counts as physical presence. 

Reliance  interests  are  a  legitimate  consideration  when 

the Court weighs adherence to an earlier but flawed prec­
edent.  See  Kimble  v.  Marvel  Entertainment,  LLC,  576 
U. S.  ___,  ___–___  (2015)  (slip  op.,  at  9–10).    But  even  on 
its  own  terms,  the  physical  presence  rule  as  defined  by 
Quill is no longer a clear or easily applicable standard, so
arguments for reliance based on its clarity are misplaced. 
And,  importantly,  stare  decisis  accommodates  only  “legit­
imate  reliance  interest[s].”  United  States  v.  Ross,  456 
U. S. 798, 824 (1982).  Here, the tax distortion created by 
Quill exists in large part because consumers regularly fail 
to comply with lawful use taxes.  Some remote retailers go
so  far  as  to  advertise  sales  as  tax  free.  See  S.  B.  106, 
§8(3); see also Brief for Petitioner 55.  A business “is in no 
position  to  found  a  constitutional  right  on  the  practical 
opportunities for tax avoidance.”  Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck 
& Co., 312 U. S. 359, 366 (1941).

Respondents argue that “the physical presence rule has
permitted start-ups and small businesses to use the Inter­