Supreme Court allows states to collect sales taxes on more online transactions

[Cubo de Sangre]

A state court can enforce its judgments against out-of-state parties, but it's more complicated, and some states have better rules for enforcing judgments than others. It's better to get the judgment in federal court in diversity so you can have the federal court enforce it.

What are the mechanisms of enforcement?

 

[JamesRussler]

What are the mechanisms of enforcement?

You discover their assets, get a writ of execution, then levy on those assets using the U.S. Marshall. If necessary, you garnish their incoming payments. Here's a good article about it (I don't know much about enforcing judgments personally, so definitely read up there if you want more depth).

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You discover their assets, get a writ of execution, then levy on those assets using the U.S. Marshall. If necessary, you garnish their incoming payments. Here's a good article about it (I don't know much about enforcing judgments personally, so definitely read up there if you want more depth).

Thanks. What I'm hearing though is that without the feds getting involved there's not much of anything that can be done. And again, while I'm annoyed they reversed their ruling just because of money, this sounds like exactly what the commerce clause should address.

EDIT: I see in your article there's state to state cooperation. Is that federally mandated? If not, do all states choose to cooperate voluntarily?

 

[Quipling]

What are the mechanisms of enforcement?

Feds aren't necessary. You obtain a judgment in a court in your state, then file in a court in their state to enforce that judgment. The specific procedure from there is a state-by-state issue, but a sister state court will theoretically respect that judgment.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Feds aren't necessary. You obtain a judgement in a court in your state, then file in a court in their state to enforce that judgement. The specific procedure from there is a state-by-state issue, but a sister state court will theoretically respect that judgement.

Thanks.

Any states, to your knowledge, that won't help provide enforcement?

 

[Quipling]

Thanks.

Any states, to your knowledge, that won't help provide enforcement?

None specifically-this is the application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Art IV, s1) of the Constitution. I included the caveat because state courts sometimes find reasons to ignore sister court judgments or orders. Sometimes they have a valid reason for doing so, e.g., one court is trying to interfere with litigation in a court in another state (Baker v. General Motor Corporation).

 

[JamesRussler]

Thanks. What I'm hearing though is that without the feds getting involved there's not much of anything that can be done. And again, while I'm annoyed they reversed their ruling just because of money, this sounds like exactly what the commerce clause should address.

Gorsuch's concurrence lays it out pretty well (I find myself agreeing with him alot; perhaps because I'm a Trump supporter). He was right to point out that the SCOTUS's old "physical presence" rule itself ran afoul of "Dormant Commerce Clause" jurisprudence and could be abandoned on that basis. But he also left the door open on whether Dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence "can be . . . defended as misbranded products of federalism or antidiscrimination imperatives flowing from Article IV’s Privileges and Immunities Clause." That sounds like a wink-and-nod to "states' rights" crowd.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Really, there shouldn't be any under the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Art IV, s1) of the Constitution.

Isn't that about extradition? Not so much about extracting monetary judgments that would require one state government to do the bidding of another?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Gorsuch's concurrence lays it out pretty well (I find myself agreeing with him alot; perhaps because I'm a Trump supporter). He was right to point out that the SCOTUS's old "physical presence" rule itself ran afoul of "Dormant Commerce Clause" jurisprudence and could be abandoned on that basis. But he also left the door open on whether Dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence "can be . . . defended as misbranded products of federalism or antidiscrimination imperatives flowing from Article IV’s Privileges and Immunities Clause." That sounds like a wink-and-nod to "states' rights" crowd.

Great. Now can SCOTUS go back and correct the ruling that says the commerce clause covers things that are neither commerce nor cross state lines?

 

[Quipling]

Isn't that about extradition?

not to my knowledge. It's pretty broadly applied, and the language isn't specific to extraditions at all. Plenty dealt with monetary judgments.

Edit: Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. Hyatt might clarify the distinction. Nevada courts had to enforce judgments from cali courts, but didn't have to follow their law immunizing the tax agency from certain claims.

 

[JamesRussler]

None specifically-this is the application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Art IV, s1) of the Constitution. I included the caveat because state courts sometimes find reasons to ignore sister court judgments or orders. Sometimes they have a valid reason for doing so, e.g., one court is trying to interfere with litigation in a court in another state (Baker v. General Motor Corporation).

Correct. I should have clarified, yes all states' judgments are recognized under FF&C. But like you said states can have weird rules and procedures for enforcing judgments, as opposed to more predictable and uniform procedures in federal court. Also there are practical reasons why enforcing a federal judgment is easier. For example, you get to make use of the U.S. Marshall. I have heard that Marshalls are faster, more diligent, and have more resources available to them. I have also heard that they don't necessarily have to follow all the same rules that Sheriffs have to follow. So all things considered, I'd rather be collecting on a judgment from federal court.

 

[Gunny]

As someone who sells to both ecommerce and brick and mortar retailers, this decision improves a major headache for me. It’s not fun for local retailers to lose sales over escaped sales tax and they have always done everything in their power to make their problem mine as well.

My only confusion is why so many of the liberals ruled against it. I have my suspicions but will shelve them for the moment and see if someone else offers a better explanation

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

not to my knowledge. It's pretty broadly applied, and the language isn't specific to extraditions at all. Plenty dealt with monetary judgments.

Edit: Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. Hyatt might clarify the distinction. Nevada courts had to enforce judgments from cali courts, but didn't have to follow their law immunizing the tax agency from certain claims.

My bad. Was looking at section 2.

Thanks for edumacating me.

 

[Gunny]

I'm just wondering how a state court could enforce collection on a business located in another state.

Not sure if this is enforcement in the sense that you’re asking but some states have historically ruled that shipments across their borders alone constituted a nexus and would impound trucks and confiscate merchandise until the offending retailer relented and agreed to collect tax

 

[JamesRussler]

Great. Now can SCOTUS go back and correct the ruling that says the commerce clause covers things that are neither commerce nor cross state lines?

The answer is always "Yes," but they probably won't. The Commerce Clause is one of the most over-extended provisions of the Constitution. Just about everything qualifies as interstate commerce. I can see them overturning a few egregious rulings, but the general framework will always be the same. There was this one ruling where they said growing weed for personal use falls "squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity." In other words, if you can produce something by yourself, for yourself, it affects interstate commerce because it means you don't have to buy it. IMO that is absolute bullshit.

EDIT: I see in your article there's state to state cooperation. Is that federally mandated? If not, do all states choose to cooperate voluntarily?

Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." This basically means that states have to respect each others' judgments. In that sense, yes it's "federally mandated" that states honor each others' judgments.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

he answer is always "Yes," but they probably won't. The Commerce Clause is one of the most over-extended provisions of the Constitution. Just about everything qualifies as interstate commerce. I can see them overturning a few egregious rulings, but the general framework will always be the same. There was this one ruling where they said growing weed for personal use falls "squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity." In other words, if you can produce something by yourself, for yourself, it affects interstate commerce because it means you don't have to buy it. IMO that is absolute bullshit.

It's beyond egregious. It defies language and logic. That and incorporation have shifted damn near all the power to the federal level of government.

 

[superpunch]

The decision is the right one for policy but seems blatantly unconstitutional. Getting policy right is the job of Congress -- amending the constitution is their job -- not the courts' job.

 

[JamesRussler]

My only confusion is why so many of the liberals ruled against it. I have my suspicions but will shelve them for the moment and see if someone else offers a better explanation

I figured the Liberal formula for judicial lawmaking. Check it out:

• Does it limit the power of the government? → Reverse
• Does it expand the power of the government? → Affirm
• Does it give law-abiding citizens more freedom? → Reverse
• Does it give criminals and foreigners for freedom? → Affirm
• Is it absurd, ill-conceived, incorrect, morally repugnant, or evil? → Affirm

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The decision is the right one for policy but seems blatantly unconstitutional.

How so?

 

[superpunch]

How so?

I dunno I'm not a lawyer. Just a gut feeling, and my gut is usually right.