October Term 2014 · Docket 13-1032
Can states force out-of-state sellers to collect taxes?
Businesses argue a federal law blocks state tax collection mandates. Colorado claims the law allows such state actions.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Isaacson argued the injunction deprived Colorado of a legislative tool.
He stated this tool allows the state to assess and collect taxes.
Justice Scalia questioned how private parties can alter a statutory mandate to courts.
He asked if the state would seek to enjoin its own tax.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 18-28 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 18-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 46-6 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 46-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 22-20 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 22-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-20 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 22-24 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 22-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 28-34 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 28-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 46-50 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 46-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 12-14 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 12-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 18-20 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 18-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 42-50 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 42-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 32-40 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 32-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 44-48 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 44-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 24-46 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 24-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 24-46 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 24-46
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on the Tax Injunction Act. the sides that brought the case claim the Act bars federal courts from enjoining state taxes. the opposing sides argue the Act permits states to require tax collection.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 46-6 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 46-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 22-20 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 22-20
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 8, 2014.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-20 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-20
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the injunction to stand. They seek to stop Colorado from forcing them to collect taxes.
the opposing sides want the injunction lifted. They seek to enforce their state tax collection laws.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 46-6 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 46-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 22-20 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 22-20
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the Tax Injunction Act prohibits federal courts from interfering with state tax systems.
the opposing sides argue the Tax Injunction Act does not bar states from requiring tax collection.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 46-6 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 46-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 22-20 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 22-20
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia asked if states can grant federal courts power the Constitution denies them.
Justice Ginsburg asked if the Tax Injunction Act covers employer reporting requirements.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 18-28 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 18-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 22-24 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 22-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 28-34 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 28-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 46-50 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 46-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 12-14 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 12-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 18-20 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 18-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 42-50 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 42-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 32-40 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 32-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 44-48 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 44-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 24-46 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 24-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 24-46 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 24-46
Why it matters
This case defines the boundary between state tax authority and federal judicial power. It determines whether states can compel out-of-state businesses to collect taxes. The outcome shapes how states enforce tax laws against remote sellers.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 46-6 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 46-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 22-20 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 22-20
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 18-28 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 18-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-20 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 22-24 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 22-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 28-34 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 28-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 46-50 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 46-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 12-14 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 12-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 18-20 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 18-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 42-50 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 42-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 32-40 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 32-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 44-48 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 44-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 24-46 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 24-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 24-46 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 24-46
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 46-6 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 46-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 22-20 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 22-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 46-6 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 46-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 22-20 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 22-20
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.