CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.

2018 United States Supreme Court case

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJun 27, 2026
Entity authorityQ48814594 ↗
Source-derived summary

South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 585 U.S. 162 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case that held by a 5–4 majority that states may charge tax on purchases made from out-of-state sellers even if the seller does not have a physical presence in the taxing state. The decision overturned Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992), which had held that the Dormant Commerce Clause barred states from compelling retailers to collect sales or use taxes in connection with mail order or Internet sales made to their residents unless those retailers have a physical presence in the taxing state.

Since Quill in 1992, the volume of interstate sales via electronic channels, particularly purchases from Internet vendors, has grown rapidly, and the Government Accountability Office has estimated that in 2017, states had lost over US$13 billion in taxes that they could not collect. Following a statement made in a concurrence opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy in a 2015 related case, which suggested that it was time to review the decision of Quill in the wake of modern technology, more than 20 states passed "kill Quill" legislation intending to collect sales tax from out-of-state vendors and did so purposely to provide the necessary legal vehicle to take to the Supreme Court. South Dakota was the first state to make its case through lower courts to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari in January 2018, heard the case on April 17, 2018, and issued its decision on June 21, 2018. A five-justice majority overturned Quill by ruling that the physical presence rule decided from Quill was "unsound and incorrect" in the current age of Internet services.

Editorial summary

“South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.” enters the record as 2018 United States Supreme Court case. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what South, Dakota and Wayfair can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2018, 1992, 2017, 2015—that can be checked directly. The linked authority record independently contributes the date 2018-06-21. Its strongest next move is a source search built around South, Dakota and Wayfair.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, South, Dakota and Wayfair provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q48814594. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2018, 1992, 2017 and 2015.

Critical limits

Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. primary sources, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. archive and South research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.”?
  2. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
  3. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.