He was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch.
The ruling comes against a backdrop of Trump's criticism of Amazon, the leading player in online retail, on the issue of taxes and other matters.
"In light of internet retailers' pervasive and continuous virtual presence in the states where their websites are accessible, the states have ample authority to require those retailers to collect state sales taxes owed by their customers", U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco said in a friend-of-the-court brief.
In a case involving MA online retailer Wayfair, the US Supreme Court Thursday opened the door for states to collect sales taxes on products their residents buy from Internet retailers in other states.
"Rejecting the physical presence rule is necessary to ensure that artificial competitive advantages are not created by this court's precedents", Kennedy said. "These critiques underscore that the physical presence rule, both as first formulated and as applied today, is an incorrect interpretation of the Commerce Clause", wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. That's because they typically have a physical store in whatever state the purchase is being shipped to.
German automakers offer to end EU's tariff's on United States autos
Canada has announced it will impose retaliatory tariffs on C16.6 billion ($12.5 billion) worth of US exports from July 1. Cranberries, cranberry juice, orange juice, sweetcorn and peanut butter are among the other food products targeted.
States stand to gain billions of dollars with the ruling and marks a new era with an Internet economy that has boomed over the past decade and become a dominant force.
South Dakota has estimated that it could take in up to $50 million a year in additional revenue with these taxes being collected.
Most states would need to pass legislation before seeking to collect the additional taxes, although some have already enacted laws or regulations similar to South Dakota's.
On June 4, the last day of the special second session, Louisiana legislators rushed through a bill that used the same wording as a South Dakota law that was the subject to the constitutional challenge in the high court.