In 2014, New Jersey passed the Sports Wagering Act, permitting sports betting at state casino and racetrack venues, in direct conflict with the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act. In 2017, South Dakota passed Senate Bill 106, requiring that certain e‐commerce retailers collect and remit sales tax, in violation of federal law. The two U.S. Supreme Court decisions arising from challenges to these state statutes—South Dakota v. Wayfair and Murphy v. NCAA—exemplify U.S. Supreme Court “case baiting.” Case baiting is a tactic states implement to challenge federal directives by passing state legislation that directly conflicts with federal law to lure the Court into granting certiorari and ruling in their favor. This article argues that South Dakota's and New Jersey's triumphs pave the way for other jurisdictions to pursue similar strategies across multiple legal issues such as abortion restrictions and immigration law. In addition, this article suggests that case baiting invites further scholarly exploration of important policy considerations, including the use of this tactic as a novel approach to the application of law and strategy, whether case baiting promotes the Court's progression toward a more quasi‐legislative role, and whether passing conflict legislation violates state legislators’ oaths of office.

中文翻译：

---

案例诱饵

2014年，新泽西州通过了《体育博彩法》，允许在州赌场和赛马场进行体育博彩，这与联邦《专业和业余体育保护法》直接冲突。在2017年，南达科他州通过了参议院第106号法案，该法案要求某些电子商务零售商违反联邦法律收取和缴纳营业税。美国最高法院因对这些州法规提出异议而做出的两项裁决（南达科他州诉Wayfair和墨菲诉NCAA）是美国最高法院“诱饵”的例证。诱饵案是各州通过挑战与联邦法律直接相抵触的州立法来挑战联邦指令的一种策略，以诱使法院授予证书并作出有利于他们的裁决。本文认为，南达科他州和新泽西州的胜利为其他国家/地区在堕胎限制和移民法等多个法律问题上采取类似策略铺平了道路。此外，