Could Justice Gorusch mean more taxes on your Internet purchases?

For good reason, most Supreme Court debates revolve around abortion. It’s literally a matter of life and death. But it’s worth looking at other issues where Neil Gorusch might influence our daily lives while on the Supreme Court.

Buying things online is one of those areas.

The reason you don’t have to pay sales taxes for interstate online purchases is that the Supreme Court ruled in Quill v North Dakota, in 1992, that states are limited in their ability to force out-of-state corporations to collect sales tax.

Neil Gorusch disagrees with the Quill decision, according to the Tax Foundation:

Judge Gorsuch concurred in a case in 2016 involving a Colorado law requiring online retailers to engage in convoluted notice procedures with respect to state sales tax, Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl. Judge Gorsuch opined that the entire field of Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine is an “artifact of judicial precedent.” While acknowledging that the Quill decision of 1992, which limited state tax power over online retailers, was precedent and courts are bound to follow it, he stressed that Quill is an “analytical oddity” and will “wash away with the tides of time.” He explained that the Court in Quill acknowledged that states can constitutionally impose tax and regulatory burdens comparable to sales and use tax collection duties, and Quill just encourages states to achieve similar results through regulation rather than tax.

Emphasis added. That makes it clear that if Gorusch has his way, we’ll all have tax hikes in the future. And the only way to avoid that, is if the US Congress can find some way to preempt the courts and get some soft of sensible compromise passed.