AGG Talks: Background Screening - What is FCRA Preemption, and Why Should You Care?
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 298: Listen and Learn -- The Dormant Commerce Clause
SCOTUS Watch: The ACA and Key Health Law Areas Justice Barrett Could Impact - Diagnosing Health Care Podcast
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 108: Listen and Learn -- The Commerce Clause
Podcast: South Dakota v. Wayfair
One of the most interesting aspects of marijuana law and policy in the U.S. is its tendency to strike at our most foundational democratic principles. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Gonzales v. Raich, that Congress...more
Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services recommended to the Drug Enforcement Administration that cannabis be rescheduled on the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) from a I to a III. At the same time, the SAFER...more
The test for personal jurisdiction, which asks whether a defendant can be compelled to litigate in a particular state, has been extensively developed over the past several decades, and notably refined in the last fifteen...more
On June 27, 2023, the United States Supreme Court held in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern R. Co., No. 21-1168, 2023 WL 4187749, that Norfolk Southern submitted to the state of Pennsylvania’s general jurisdiction (that is, being...more
The dormant Commerce Clause is one of the oldest constitutional doctrines, dating to the early 1800s. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, and the dormant...more
With the Justices largely in agreement across the board, the Court today issued five opinions. One of them provides a usefully definitive view of the limited nature of the so-called “dormant Commerce Clause.” Two of them are...more
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (Docket No. 21-468). The case involves a challenge to 2018 proposition that, among other things, forbids the sale of "any...more
On Monday, March 28, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear industry’s challenge to California’s Proposition 12, a law restricting certain confinement practices in industrial animal agriculture. The case, styled National...more
Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., No. 20-440: In the late 1990s, Csaba Truckai invented and patented a device to treat abnormal uterine bleeding. Truckai assigned his interest to his company, Novacept, which in turn...more
The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue issued a bulletin announcing its view that the US Supreme Court’s sales and use tax decision in Wayfair v. South Dakota applies equally to corporate net income tax and authorizes the...more
Executive Summary - After Wayfair, unless Congress intervenes: The physical presence sales tax taxability standard is now gone - at least under circumstances like those presented by South Dakota’s situation. Income...more
Maine Revenue Services issued guidance, August 8, 2018, regarding remote sellers’ sales tax collection obligations in light of the Supreme Court’s June 21, 2018 decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc....more
In its 5-4 decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, the U.S. Supreme Court gave states the authority to require online retailers to collect state sales taxes even if the retailer has no physical presence in a state. The decision...more
Just about every State in the U.S. imposes a “sales tax” on the retail sale of goods and services in their State. That sales tax is required to be collected and remitted by the seller of the goods or services; however, if the...more
Stand Your Ground! Substantial Nexus Lives After Wayfair - The U.S. Supreme Court decided in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. that the U.S. Constitution does not require a physical presence in a taxing state in order for...more
The US House Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, July 24 at 10:00 am EDT in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building. According to a press release circulated July 19, the topic of the hearing will be...more
In a sign of how far e-commerce has changed in just a little over two decades, on June 21, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned its 1992 decision of Quill v. North Dakota (504 U.S. 298). The implications of this...more
What is the practical risk that states would take in applying Wayfair retroactively? And should taxpayers rush to limit exposure for historical periods by entering into voluntary disclosure agreements with states that might...more
In a decision dated June 21 – South Dakota v. Wayfair – the Supreme Court held that no “physical presence” is required for a state to impose sales tax collection obligations on out-of-state vendors....more
On June 21, the U.S. Supreme Court upended the online retail industry, giving states the power to force online retailers to collect sales tax from sales to consumers. Prior to the landmark South Dakota v. Wayfair decision,...more
As we previously reported, on June 21, the Supreme Court overturned the longstanding rule that a state was prohibited from requiring a remote seller to collect sales tax where the seller had no physical presence in the state....more
In South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., et al., the U.S. Supreme Court recently overruled long-standing precedent on what is necessary to create “nexus” to collect sales or use tax on sales into a particular state. The decision...more
South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., decided on June 21, 2018, required the Supreme Court to assess how its own precedent fit in the era of online commerce. Buyers and sellers in the United States are familiar with the sales tax...more
If convenience wasn’t reason enough for you to shop online, the sales tax saving probably was. Not anymore after Justice Kennedy’s final majority opinion for the Supreme Court in the South Dakota v. Wayfair case....more