The Supreme Court is set to decide the future of online sales taxes.
"The only reason for the Supreme Court to take this case is if it meant to modify Quill", she said.
Last summer, after the three-judge panel invalidated some of the congressional and state House districts, finding they violate the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Voting Rights Act, the state and plaintiffs had been preparing to meet to take up remedial maps, when the Supreme Court temporarily blocked the lower court ruling and the hearings were canceled. That now may happen. That put catalog sales off-limits.
Attorney General Ken Paxton appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted a temporary suspension of the lower court rulings.
Kennedy's comments prompted South Dakota to launch a new attack on the physical presence rule. Repeated pleas by states after that to change the rule failed. Justice Anthony Kennedy said in a 2015 opinion that he wanted the court to take another look at the issue. Congress, too, had often been asked to provide help, but it only studied the question.More news: Are Hedge Funds Betting Against First Solar, Inc. (FSLR)?
In 2016, South Dakota lawmakers passed a law requiring out-of-state sellers to collect and turn over sales tax to the state. The company opted in 2017 to begin collecting sales tax in all 50 states for goods its sells itself, leaving the decision up to third-party sellers on its marketplace - many of whom opt not to, according to Bloomberg. Since it doesn't have a state income tax, sales taxes are that much more important to the state budget.
Meanwhile ecommerce trade group NetChoice says states already have a way to collect taxes on purchases made by residents from out-of-state retailers - they require their own citizens to pay "use" tax for transactions in which out-of-state retailers don't collect the "sales" tax.
Steve DelBianco, president of NetChoice, an association of online businesses and consumers, said the justices "will learn how new state laws are imposing unreasonable tax burdens on out-of-state businesses".
That would be a victory for states and traditional businesses, but a defeat for smaller online retailers who claim they can not navigate dozens of state sales tax systems the way major players such as Amazon do.
Hanging over the Texas case is the possibility that the state will be placed back under federal oversight of its elections laws.More news: Meryl Streep: 'Oprah is serious about presidential bid'
The justices did not agree to hear the partisan gerrymandering case.
The case is expected to draw a long list of supporters and opponents of South Dakota's challenge. That case, along with the one from Texas, is likely to be heard this spring and decided by June.
The justices said they will review a lower-court ruling that found problems with two congressional districts and statehouse districts in four counties.
The grant of review of the South Dakota case on Friday was among similar grants on ten other cases.
Paxton's office successfully appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, which on a 5-4 vote in September instructed the San Antonio panel to leave the districts in place. The map is invalid because it resulted from a partisan gerrymandering, giving Republican candidates virtual assurances that they would win 10 of the state's 13 House seats.More news: It's on: Former lawmaker declares 'Twitter war' on Trump