This website may use cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can leave if you wish.
Read MoreAccept
Join RILA My Profile
Sign In
eFairness Litigation
Search
Search
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Conferences & Meetings
  • Newsroom
Search Page Tools
  • Retail Litigation Center
    • Home
    • Appellate Litigation
    • eFairness LitigationCurrently selected
    • RLC Defense Division
    • Board of Directors
    • RLC Membership
 
  • Board of Directors
  • RLC Membership
  • RLC Defense Division
  • Appellate Litigation
  • Press Releases
  • Calendar of Events
  • eFairness LitigationCurrently selected
  • Recent
Site Contents
You are here: Skip Navigation LinksRILA » Legal / Compliance » Retail Litigation Center » eFairness Litigation

 South Dakota eFairness - SCOTUS Overrules Quill and Bellas Hess

Page Content
  • See U.S. Supreme Court Opinion (6/21/2018)

  • See South Dakota's Reply Brief

  • See Retail Litigation Center's (+20 Associations)  Amici Brief on the Merits

  • See South Dakota's Opening Brief on the Merits (2/26/2018)

  • See the 15 Amicus Briefs Filed in Support of Certiorari (11/2/2017)

  • See South Dakota's Petition for Certiorari (10/2/2017)
Full briefing can be found at the bottom of the page.

South Dakota's S.B. 106 (2016) requires sellers without a physical presence in the state to collect and remit sales tax if they transact more than $100,000 of business in the state or more than 200 sales.  Implementation of S.B. 106 has led to two separate lawsuits.

State of South Dakota v. Wayfair, Overstock, Newegg originated as a state complaint that these online retailers had failed to appropriately register, collect, and remit state sales tax.[1] The defendants removed the case to the federal district court where the parties fully briefed both the State's motion for remand and the defendants' motion for summary judgment.  The state's remand papers were especially notable because the state conceded in the briefing and later at oral argument that it could not prevail before the federal district court because of the Supreme Court's Quill decision.  Indeed, in response to questioning at oral argument, the state noted that it did not have a bias for either federal or state court but was concerned about clear U.S. Supreme Court precedent that held that the federal court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, that such defect could not be waived, and that if the case proceeded in federal court, it could later be derailed and sent back to the state courts.

Federal District Judge Roberto Lange granted the State's motion to remand the case back to South Dakota circuit court on January 17, 2017, and, therefore, did not need to consider the defendants' motion for summary judgment.  South Dakota Circuit Court Judge Mark Barnett quickly ruled in favor of the defendants' motion for summary judgment that had been fully briefed before the federal court in light of the fact that the state had already conceded that S.B. 106 was unconstitutional under Quill and the only court that could grant the relief sought was the U.S. Supreme Court.

The state appealed and the case is now fully briefed and on the docket of the Supreme Court of South Dakota. Oral argument was held on August 29, 2017.

On September 14, 2017, the South Dakota Supreme Court issued its opinion affirming the lower court’s decision and holding the South Dakota statute unconstitutional (as expected) because – as the state itself – only the U.S. Supreme Court can reconsider its own precedents.  The decision accomplished the state’s goals because it was issued quickly (two weeks), affirmed the lower court’s decision, and did so in a written opinion that explained the challenges facing the state.

On October 2, 2017, the State of South Dakota filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. The question presented is whether the Court should overrule Quill's sales-tax-only, physical-presence requirement.  Briefing on the petition for certiorari was completed on December 20, 2017.

On January 12, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the State's petition. Oral arguments will be heard on April 17, 2018. 

ACMA, NetChoice v. South Dakota Department of Revenue. On April 28, 2016, the day after the State brought suit against the individual online retailers, the American Catalog Mailers Association (ACMA) and NetChoice filed suit in state circuit court against the state. These two trade associations, which respectively represent catalog retailers and large online-only retailers such as Overstock, which is a defendant in the state's case, challenged the validity of S.B. 106. The state filed an answer and the case remains on the docket of the South Dakota Circuit Court without further activity.

[1] Online retailer Systemax was also sued in the initial complaint but decided a day later to abide by the law and collect legally due sales taxes rather than rest on constitutional defenses.

Pleadings

State of South Dakota v. Wayfair, Overstock, Newegg

Circuit Court of South Dakota

  • State's Complaint, April 2016
  • State's Application for Preliminary Injunction Order, April 2016
  • Defendants' Notice of Removal, May 2016

Federal District Court of South Dakota

  • State's Motion to Remand to State Court, July 2016
  • State's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Remand, July 2016
  • Defendants' Brief in Opposition to State's Motion to Remand, August 2016
  • State's Reply to Defendants' Brief in Opposition to Remand, August 2016
  • Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Request for Oral Argument, July 2016
  • Defendants' Statement of Material Facts, July 2016
  • Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, July 2016
  • State's Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, August 2016
  • State's Response to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts, August 2016
  • South Dakota District Court's Order and Opinion Granting State's Motion to Remand to State Court, January 2017

Circuit Court of South Dakota

  • South Dakota Circuit Court's Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, March 2017

South Dakota Supreme Court

  • State's Notice of Appeal, March 2017
  • State's Brief, April 2017
  • Defendants' Brief, June 2017
  • State's Reply Brief, June 2017
  • Oral Argument, August 2017
  • SD Supreme Court Decision, September 2017
U.S. Supreme Court - Oral Argument: April 17 2018
  • State's Petition for Certiorari, October 2017
  • 15 Amicus Briefs in Support of Certiorari 
  • Respondents' Brief in Opposition, December 2017
  • 6 Amicus Briefs in Support of Opposition, December 2017
  • State's Reply Brief, December 2017
  • Petition Granted: January 2018
  • State's Opening Brief on the Merits, February 2018
  • 12 Merits Amicus Briefs in Support of Petitioner
  • 5 Merits Amicus Briefs in Support of Neither Party
  • Respondents' Brief on the Merits, April 2018
  • 23 Briefs in Support of Respondents'
  • State's Reply Brief, April 2018
  • Oral Argument: April 2018
  • U.S. Supreme Court Opinion

ACMA and Netchoice v. South Dakota Department of Revenue

  • Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, April 2016
  • Answer of the South Dakota DoR, June 2016
Retail Industry Leaders Associations
© Retail Industry Leaders Association

1700 N. Moore Street
Suite 2250
Arlington, VA 22209
(703) 841-2300
Home Privacy Policy Terms of Use DMCA Site Map
Disclaimer:
The Site materials are provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal, financial or other professional advice. See Terms of Use for complete information.