Direct Marketing Ass'n v. Brohl
| Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl | |
|---|---|
| Argued December 8, 2014 Decided March 3, 2015 | |
| Full case name | Direct Marketing Association, Petitioner v. Barbara Brohl, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Revenue |
| Docket no. | 13-1032 |
| Citations | 575 U.S. 1 (more) 135 S. Ct. 1124; 191 L. Ed. 2d 97 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Direct Marketing Ass'n v. Huber, No. 1:10-cv-01546, 2012 WL 1079175 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2012); remanded sub. nom., Direct Marketing Ass'n v. Brohl, 735 F.3d 904 (10th Cir. 2013); cert. granted, 134 S. Ct. 2901 (2014). |
| Subsequent | On remand, 814 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 2016); cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 591 (2016). |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Thomas, joined by unanimous |
| Concurrence | Kennedy |
| Concurrence | Ginsburg, joined by Breyer; Sotomayor (in part) |
| Laws applied | |
Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl, 575 U.S. 1 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a lawsuit by the Direct Marketing Association trade group about a Colorado law regarding reporting the state's tax requirements to customers and to the Colorado Department of Revenue is not barred by the Tax Injunction Act. While the case was reheard and found in favor of Colorado, the concurrence of Justice Anthony Kennedy provided a means for states to bring a challenge the ruling of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which has prevented states from collecting taxes from out-of-state vendors.