Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf
Page Number: 32

2 

SOUTH DAKOTA v. WAYFAIR, INC. 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

stare decisis, or defended as misbranded products of feder-
alism  or  antidiscrimination  imperatives  flowing  from 
Article  IV’s  Privileges  and  Immunities  Clause  are  ques-
tions  for  another  day.  See  Energy  &  Environment  Legal 
Inst. v. Epel, 793 F. 3d 1169, 1171 (CA10 2015); Comptrol-
ler  of  Treasury  of  Md.  v.  Wynne,  575  U. S.  ___,  ___–___ 
(2015)  (Scalia,  J.,  dissenting)  (slip  op.,  at  1–3);  Camps 
Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U. S. 
564,  610–620  (1997)  (THOMAS,  J.,  dissenting).  Today  we 
put  Bellas  Hess  and  Quill  to  rest  and  rightly  end  the 
paradox  of  condemning  interstate  discrimination  in  the 
national economy while promoting it ourselves.