I don’t read it that way.
I’ll try to cut through the crap and explain: In most states that have a sales tax, the obligation to pay the tax is on the buyer, not the seller. Most of these states recognize that the buyer is not going to voluntarily pay the tax and therefore they enact laws that require the seller to collect the tax from the buyer and then remit the tax to the state. (Many states also give the seller a small credit for collecting the tax for the state, but that’s another issue).
Upon until today, a seller had no obligation to collect sales tax from a buyer on behalf of the taxing state unless the seller was actually “doing business” in the taxing state, which, under the substantive due process clause, required a physical presence in that state and/or incorporation under the laws of that state.
As of today, “doing business” no longer requires a physical presence in the state, and as a result, the taxing state where the buyer resides can force the seller, no matter where the seller is physically located, to collect sales tax from the buyer on behalf of the taxing state. Thus, even if the seller is physically located in a state that does not impose a sales tax, the state where the buyer resides now force the seller to collect the sales tax for the state where the buyer resides.
Although the SCOTUS ruled that “doing business” in a state no longer requires a physical presence, due process still requires a nexus of some sort between the seller and the taxing state such as an internet presence or or the mailing of catalogs into the state. If an internet seller does not want to collect sales tax on behalf on a particular state, than it can simply deny internet sales to residents of that particular state.
NOTE that the SCOTUS opinion does not specifically decide whether the North Dakota law at issue imposed an impermissible and unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce in violation of the “dormant commerce clause” because that issue was not before the court; rather the court’s opinion is limited to whether a state can require a seller with no physical presence within the state to collect a sales tax from a buyer on behalf of that state. As to that issue, the court ruled in the affirmative.