Washington (CNN) The Supreme Court cleared the way on Monday for states to legalize sports betting, striking down a 1992 federal law that had prohibited most states from authorizing sports betting.

The 6-3 ruling is a victory for New Jersey and other states who have considered allowing sports gambling as a way to encourage tourism and tax revenue. The NCAA, NFL and NBA had backed the federal prohibition.

The court said the federal law violated constitutional principles limiting the federal government from controlling state policy, unconstitutionally forcing states to prohibit sports betting under their own laws.

"The legalization of sports gambling requires an important policy choice, but the choice is not ours to make," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the 6-3 opinion. "Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each state is free to act on its own."

Immediately after the ruling, the stock price for Caesars Entertainment rose 6%, and DraftKings said it will enter the sports betting market.

"Today's decision clears the way for all states to make their own decisions about legalizing sports betting, and in one fell swoop gets rid of Nevada's monopoly on the subject and the 1992 federal statute that had protected it," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law.

"The question now is whether Congress will leave the states to make their own choices or will now try to enact some kind of federal regulation of sports betting," Vladeck added.

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy celebrated the decision, which began with a lawsuit brought by former-Gov. Chris Christie.

"I am thrilled to see the Supreme Court finally side with New Jersey and strike down the arbitrary ban on sports betting imposed by Congress decades ago," Murphy said Monday. "Today's ruling will finally allow for authorized facilities in New Jersey to take the same bets that are legal in other states in our country."

The controversy started in 2011, when New Jersey voters approved a measure to legalize sports betting to help the casino industries in a faltering economy. But the state law was immediately challenged by professional sports leagues and the NCAA, which pointed to a federal law passed in 1992 that bans state sports betting with some exceptions.

NCAA's chief legal officer Donald Remy said in a statement that while the organization is still reviewing how court's decision affects college sports, it will "will adjust sports wagering and championship policies to align with the direction from the court."

Major League Baseball released a statement saying the decision will have "profound effects" on the sport.

"Our most important priority is protecting the integrity of our games," MLB's statement continued. "We will continue to support legislation that creates air-tight coordination and partnerships between the state, the casino operators and the governing bodies in sports toward that goal."

Major American sports leagues -- including the NFL, NBA and the MLB -- offered cautious reaction to the news, saying they would take steps to protect the integrity of the games and called for regulatory framework.

Ted Leonsis, who owns the NBA's Washington Wizards, the WNBA's Washington Mystics and the National Hockey League's Washington Capitals, celebrated the decision

"It brings a multibillion dollar industry out of the shadows and into the sunlight, where its integrity can be guaranteed and consumers can be better protected," Leonsis wrote in a blog post, adding, "I think that the increased transparency that will accompany more legalized betting around the country will only further protect against potential corruption."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, and joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Stephen Breyer in part, criticized the majority for wielding an ax to "cut down" down the entire statute instead of "using a scalpel to trim the statute." She suggested the law could be severed for a less broad ruling that would only impact the states and not private parties.

The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act made it unlawful for a state to "sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or authorize by law" sports wagering. Nevada was exempted from the law, and three other states -- Montana, Delaware, and Oregon -- that had already enacted sports lotteries were allowed to continue to do so. The law was passed out of concern that sports gambling might change the nature of sporting events from wholesome entertainment to a device for gambling.

At the time, New Jersey could have allowed sports wagering if it had acted within a year of the law's effective date, but chose not to. However, the state later changed its mind and passed a law to allow sports betting. Sports leagues challenged the law citing the 1992 law, and they won in federal court.

New Jersey then tried to pass a new law in 2014 that simply repealed key provisions of its prohibitions on sports wagering to the extent they applied at racetracks and casinos. Again, the courts ruled against the state, prompting Christie to take the case to the Supreme Court. New Jersey saw the case as a states' right issue and argued that the 1992 law is unconstitutional because it violates the so called "anti commandeering" principle of the 10th Amendment that bars Congress from ordering states to participate in a federal regulatory scheme.

Monday, the Supreme Court agreed.

"The majority relied upon the 'anti-commandeering' doctrine, holding that Congress can choose federal policies, but can't dictate to states what their own policies must be," Vladeck said.

Christie celebrated the ruling in a tweet . "New Jersey citizens wanted sports gambling and the federal Gov't had no right to tell them no. The Supreme Court agrees with us today."

A great day for the rights of states and their people to make their own decisions. New Jersey citizens wanted sports gambling and the federal Gov't had no right to tell them no. The Supreme Court agrees with us today. I am proud to have fought for the rights of the people of NJ. — Governor Christie (@GovChristie) May 14, 2018

West Virginia and 17 other states, and the governors of three more, sided with New Jersey in the case. They said in court briefs that if the high court sided with the sporting leagues, "Congress could compel the entire machinery of state government -- legislatures, executives and courts -- to maintain and enforce repealed state laws at the behest of the federal government."

Lawyers for the leagues responded that the federal law does not run afoul of the Constitution because it doesn't force the states to take any action or become a part of any federal regulatory scheme. It simply prohibits sports betting in the states.

They argued that a state law legalizing sports betting is preempted by existing federal law.

"New Jersey's real complaint is that Congress has forbidden it from enacting the specific policy it prefers -- namely, state sports gambling at its state-licensed casinos and race tracks," wrote Paul D. Clement, a lawyer representing the NCAA, the NBA, the NFL and others.</s>WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has struck down a federal law that bars gambling on football, basketball, baseball and other sports in most states, giving states the go-ahead to legalize betting on sports.

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act. The 1992 law barred state-authorized sports gambling with some exceptions. It made Nevada the only state where a person could wager on the results of a single game.

One research firm estimated before the ruling that if the Supreme Court were to strike down the law, 32 states would likely offer sports betting within five years.

The court's decision came in a case from New Jersey, which has fought for years to legalize gambling on sports at casinos and racetracks in the state.

Monmouth Park has been preparing for the day it could offer sports betting and CEO Dennis Drazin was excited about the propsect of actual wagering at the Oceanport park.

“This is the culmination of the hard-work and dedication of a large group of individuals, all of whom contributed to today’s victory and will undoubtedly contribute to our future success. We started this fight back in 2012 and are grateful that the Supreme Court has recognized that we’ve been right all along. We can now shift our focus on commencing sports betting, which will be off and running at Monmouth Park as soon as possible."

“I am thrilled to see the Supreme Court finally side with New Jersey and strike down the arbitrary ban on sports betting imposed by Congress decades ago," Murphy said in a statement.

He also recognized the work of Christie and and former state Senator Ray Lesniak's work for legalized sports betting to New Jersey. "I look forward to working with the Legislature to enact a law authorizing and regulating sports betting in the very near future," Murphy wrote.

"I have long believed that New Jersey should have the opportunity to proceed with sports betting. Now that the Supreme Court has struck down this unlawful and confusing law, it is time for Congress to move the GAME Act forward to ensure that consumer protections are in place in any state that decides to implement sports betting," Pallone said in a statement.

“This is a decisive and extremely gratifying victory for New Jersey. We are on the right side of history with this case with a decision that will allow us to follow through with legally-sanctioned sports betting," he said. "We can now seize the opportunity with a new sector of gaming that will help create jobs, generate economic growth and be an important boost to the casino industry and horse racing. Sports betting is already a common practice and making it legal is the most responsible and most beneficial thing to do.

Sweeney said that New Jersey is "positioned to capitalize on the ruling quickly and that he expects the sports betting facilities to become operational this year." He also pledged to quickly move legislation to make sports betting possible.</s>Some fear the move opens the door to corruption in sports.

Sports betting cannot be outlawed by the federal government, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, handing a victory to New Jersey lawmakers who have been hoping to collect taxes from the practice.

As Yahoo News reports, in a 7-2 decision in the case of Murphy v. NCAA, the Court ruled 1992’s PASPA law (Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act) was unconstitutional. That decision paves the way for the 50 states to legalizing betting on sports, although that doesn’t necessarily mean that all 50 will.

The Original Law And How It Got To The SCOTUS

In 1992, the Bush administration passed the Bradley Act, or PASPA, effectively banning the practice of placing bets on the outcome of sporting events, both professional and amateur. The law exempted Nevada and three other states (none of them New Jersey) from the act, allowing the thriving sports-book industry in Las Vegas to continue and flourish.

In 2009, New Jersey State Senator Raymond Lesniak filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, claiming that PASPA unconstitutionally discriminated against New Jersey and the other 46 states left out of the act by allowing online sports betting in some states but not others. Then, in 2012, the four major professional U.S. sports leagues, plus the NCAA, filed suit against New Jersey for effectively ignoring PASPA and allowing online sports betting in the Garden State.

What Does The Decision Mean?

In New Jersey, the decision means that Atlantic City Casinos can now move forward with their sports books, according to SB Nation.

As for the other 50 states, however, the matter is less clear. Five other states – Mississippi, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Connecticut – have already passed laws allowing sports betting in their states. Those laws now have Supreme Court approval, and legal sports books will likely pop up in those states soon.

Sports bettors in the remaining states will have to wait for their state legislatures to pass such laws. A handful, including Missouri, Iowa, Kentucky, and Illinois, currently have such legislation pending, but no official laws just yet, according to ESPN.

The Arguments For And Against Sports Betting

Supporters of legal sports betting claim that legalizing the practice allows states to collect tax money on an existing black market. For example, that $5 you bet on your NCAA office pool last March was technically an act of illegal sports betting; with the practice now legal, you could bet that $5 at a casino near you, for a much higher return and with the state now being able to collect taxes on the bet.

Conversely, as Yahoo Sports writer Ben Rohrbach writes, sports gambling is inherently addictive. What’s more, he says, opponents of the practice argue that it will open the door to corruption on the playing field – for example, by enabling betting syndicates to pay off teams or players to throw games.</s>asset not included because it is a duplicate of primary asset

WASHINGTON — New Jersey won a landmark ruling from the Supreme Court Monday that could lead many states to legalize betting on college and professional sports.

The justices ruled 7-2 that a 25-year-old federal law that has effectively prohibited sports betting outside Nevada by forcing states to keep prohibitions on the books is unconstitutional. The ruling could set the stage for other states to expand legalized gambling as a source of government revenue.

Justice Samuel Alito, a New Jersey native, wrote the court's opinion in the case. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

It was a victory for the state's recently departed governor, Chris Christie, who had challenged the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, passed by Congress in 1992 to preserve the integrity of the nation's most popular sports. He and other proponents sought the ruling in order to help the state's ailing casinos and racetracks.

It was a defeat for the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the four major professional sports leagues — baseball, football, basketball and hockey — that had successfully blocked New Jersey in lower courts.

"Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each state is free to act on its own," Alito said. "Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. PASPA is not."

The court's action could jump-start action in Congress to pass legislation calling for federal regulation of sports betting -- something the sports leagues would prefer over separate rules from state to state.

"Now that the Supreme Court has struck down this unlawful and confusing law, it is time for Congress to move the GAME Act forward to ensure that consumer protections are in place in any state that decides to implement sports betting,” said Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J.

Congress passed the 1992 law to preserve what lawmakers at the time felt was the integrity of the games. But New Jersey and its allies argued that it ran afoul of the 10th Amendment, which reserves for the states all powers not delegated to the federal government.

Alito and six colleagues agreed, including all the court's conservatives as well as Justice Elena Kagan.

"It is as if federal officers were installed in state legislative chambers and were armed with the authority to stop legislators from voting on any offending proposals," Alito said. "A more direct affront to state sovereignty is not easy to imagine."

Justice Stephen Breyer agreed that the provision directing states to maintain sports betting bans should be stricken, but he said the whole federal law should not have been declared unconstitutional.

Ginsburg and Sotomayor went further, saying the the law should stand. "The court wields an ax to cut down (the law) instead of using a scalpel to trim the statute," Ginsburg said. "It does so apparently in the mistaken assumption that private sports-gambling schemes would become lawful in the wake of its decision."

Christie, who left office in January, signed the state's first law legalizing sports betting in 2012 after voters in 2011 overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state Constitution to allow it.

That law was overturned by federal district and appeals courts, but the state tried again in 2014 with a law that stopped short of legalization but repealed the prohibition against running a sports books at tracks and casinos. That also was rejected at the trial and appellate levels, but the Supreme Court agreed last June to hear the case.

During oral argument in December, several conservative justices said the law impermissibly "commandeered" states to keep their bans on the books. But several liberal justices said Congress merely pre-empted state laws, a commonplace action.

What has made the law anachronistic is the advent and rapid growth of Internet gambling. Rather than stopping sports betting, it helped push more of it underground, creating a $150 billion annual industry. That dwarfs the $5 billion bet in Nevada, the lone state with a legal sports book that preceded the federal law.

Raymond Lesniak, a former Democratic state senator who sponsored the bill, said states should be free to wrest sports gambling back from organized crime and offshore operations. ESPN lists Delaware, Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia as states that are closest to legalizing sports betting.

"There’s plenty of action to go around," Lesniak said. "We originally took on the challenge to help our ailing casinos and racetrack industry, and this is going to be a big help.”

In the decades since the legislation was passed, opposition among the sports leagues has waned. The National Hockey League has located a team in Las Vegas, and the NFL's Oakland Raiders are due to follow. National Basketball Association commissioner Adam Silver has endorsed sports betting, and Major League Baseball has invested in fantasy leagues.

“Today’s decision is a victory for the millions of Americans who seek to bet on sports in a safe and regulated manner," said Geoff Freeman, president of the American Gaming Association. "Today’s ruling makes it possible for states and sovereign tribal nations to give Americans what they want: an open, transparent, and responsible market for sports betting."

More: With New Jersey sports betting case, Supreme Court could affect wide array of issues

More: Supreme Court could make sports-betting ban an underdog

More: Sports betting, states' rights on tap at Supreme Court</s>The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal law banning sports betting on Monday, leaving states to choose whether or not to legalize and regulate such gambling, which already constitutes an offshore industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA) previously prohibited states, outside of Nevada, from authorizing sports betting. The state of New Jersey has been fighting against that law since 2011, when voters in the state amended the state constitution to allow gambling on sports. But more than once, the state’s challenges were struck down in court, as the four major professional sports leagues mounted a powerful defense of PASPA. In 2011, the Supreme Court actually decided not to take the case.

As public sentiment over sports betting began to shift, however, even the leagues began changing their tune. A Washington Post poll last October found that 55 percent of Americans believed sports betting should be legal. In 2014, NBA commissioner Adam Silver wrote a now-infamous New York Times editorial claiming that sports betting should be legalized and regulated. Still, as opposition waned, progress was gradual.

That changed on Monday, as the Supreme Court ruled, 7-2, that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to impose such a ban, changing the sports landscape forever.

“The legalization of sports gambling requires an important policy choice, but the choice is not ours to make,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the Court’s opinion. “Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each state is free to act on its own.”

PASPA was signed by George W. Bush in 1992, in hopes of preserving the integrity of sporting events. But as an unregulated sports betting landscape thrived offshore, these concerns have dissipated. The question surrounding the case, which was originally brought to the court by former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, became one of state versus federal power.

All of the Court’s conservative judges, in addition to justice Elena Kegan, agreed that PASPA violated the 10th amendment, which reserved for states all powers not delegated to the federal government. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonya Sotomayor disagreed with the decision.

Ginsburg, in her dissent, suggested that “the court wields an ax to cut down (the law) instead of using a scalpel to trim the statute. It does so apparently in the mistaken assumption that private sports-gambling schemes would become lawful in the wake of its decision.”

It’s likely to take months — and, in some cases, years — before states move to officially legalize sports betting. A federal bill regulating sports betting remains possible, but efforts to pass such legislation have been minimal thus far. It’s far more likely that the decision will be left to the states, at least for the time being.

Some states — like New Jersey, West Virginia, and Mississippi — have already passed legislation, in anticipation of the court’s ruling, meaning they will likely be among the first to join Nevada in offering single-game sports wagering. Other states, including California, have proposed similar bills, but face a long road ahead before such legislation is passed, thanks to the multitude of gaming interests in the state. Since Jan. 1, 15 states have introduced bills to legalize sports betting; though, only one, West Virginia, has passed legislation in 2018.

But now, the floodgates are open. Sports betting, which had previously lingered in the shadows, will now be at the forefront, and the implications, from state tax revenue to media coverage to live sports engagement, are wide-reaching.

“Today’s decision is a victory for the millions of Americans who seek to bet on sports in a safe and regulated manner,” Geoff Freeman, president of the American Gaming Association, said in a statement. “Today’s ruling makes it possible for states and sovereign tribal nations to give Americans what they want: an open, transparent, and responsible market for sports betting.”</s>On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal ban on sports betting was unconstitutional, opening up a huge potential market for New Jersey and beyond. REUTERS/Las Vegas Sun/Steve Marcus
• The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the federal ban on sports betting was unconstitutional.
• The move opens up legal sports betting in New Jersey and beyond, as states can now choose whether to legalize the practice.
• In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, "Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each state is free to act on its own."

The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of New Jersey on Monday, calling the federal ban on sports betting unconstitutional and opening up the potential for more states to legalize it.

The decision overturns the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, the 1992 law that banned sports betting outside of Nevada and a few other states that had been grandfathered in.

In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that "Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each state is free to act on its own."

Justice Samuel Alito, a New Jersey native, gave the majority opinion, saying: "Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. PASPA is not."

The ruling could lead to a windfall for New Jersey and specifically Atlantic City, as millions of people in nearby metro areas could be just a short drive away from legal sports betting.</s>On Monday, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law that prevented states from legalizing sports betting in Murphy v. NCAA. The ruling struck a blow against federal overreach and restored to states the power to set their own policies related to gambling.

The court ruled 7-2, with Justice Stephen Breyer joining all but one part of the majority opinion. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and, in part, Breyer.

For the past half-century, most states have barred sports betting, and in 1992, Congress passed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which makes it unlawful for states to “sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or authorize by law … a lottery, sweepstakes, or other betting, gambling, or wagering scheme based” on competitive sports.

In short, the law prevented states from passing new laws or repealing old ones, with the goal of keeping sports betting illegal in most states. The law grandfathered in four states (including Nevada) and also gave the state of New Jersey a one-year window to legalize sports betting.

New Jersey waited until 2011, when the voters passed a constitutional amendment authorizing the state Legislature to legalize sports betting in Atlantic City. When the Legislature passed such a law in 2012, the NCAA and professional sports leagues immediately challenged it, and a federal district court halted its implementation under PASPA.

Then in 2014, the state tried another tactic. The Legislature passed a law repealing an earlier law that barred sports betting. Under the new law, betting would be allowed in Atlantic City for sporting events that did not take place in New Jersey or involve New Jersey collegiate teams.

The NCAA and professional sports leagues challenged the 2014 law — and that’s the subject of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Murphy v. NCAA.

The court agreed with New Jersey that the federal law violates the Constitution.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito explained that the 10th Amendment “with[e]ld from Congress the power to issue orders directly to the States.” Known as the anti-commandeering doctrine, this structural constitutional principle holds that Congress may not force states into the service of the federal government.

As the court explained in New York v. United States (1992), a case dealing with states’ disposal of radioactive waste, while Congress may incentivize states to pass certain laws, the Constitution does not allow Congress to override states’ sovereignty to regulate the private conduct of their own citizens.

Certainly, Congress can take a “carrot or stick” approach to encourage states to enact federal priorities, but it can’t force state governments to enact its preferred policies.

PASPA violates this principle because, as Alito wrote, it “unequivocally dictates what a state legislature may and may not do.” Indeed, he asserted that a “more direct affront to state sovereignty is not easy to imagine.” Alito compared it to federal officers being placed in statehouses across the country “armed with the authority to stop legislators from voting on any offending proposals.”

RELATED: Speech, Art and the Masterpiece Cakeshop: Will the Freedom to Create Be Protected?

“The legislative powers granted to Congress are sizable but they are not unlimited. The Constitution confers on Congress not plenary legislative power but only certain enumerated powers. Therefore, all other legislative power is reserved for the States, as the Tenth Amendment confirms. And conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the governments of the States.”

The court also rejected the claim that the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act pre-empted state law in this area. Alito quickly knocked down that argument, explaining that in order to pre-empt state law, a federal law must be based on “the exercise of a power conferred to Congress by the Constitution” and regulate private actors, not the states. The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act fails on both accounts.

Alito concluded that Congress could regulate sports betting directly, but having chosen not to, “each state is free to act on its own.”

A dozen or so states were already considering legalizing sports betting, and this ruling gives them the green light. But it could also have an impact far beyond the sports world — in the legal battle between the Trump administration and sanctuary cities, and in conflicts between states and the federal government over legalizing marijuana.

Elizabeth Slattery writes about the proper role of the courts, judicial nominations, and the Constitution as a legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research. She co-hosts SCOTUS101, a podcast about everything that’s happening at the Supreme Court.

A version of this Op-Ed previously appeared on The Daily Signal website under the headline, “Supreme Court Rules for Federalism in Sports Betting Case.”

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.</s>The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of New Jersey on Monday effectively killed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), the federal law that essentially limited sports betting to one state for the last 25 years.

PASPA was declared unconstitutional in the 7-2 decision, meaning it will be up to states – including New Jersey, which has sought to establish sports gambling for years – to decide whether to allow its residents to bet on sports.

Here’s a breakdown of what the ruling by the nation’s highest court means:

PASPA was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush in 1992 and went into effect in January 1993. Nevada – the only state at the time the bill became law that had widespread state-sponsored sports bettors – and three other states with more limited betting (Oregon, Delaware and Montana) were grandfathered in.

PASPA didn’t outlaw sports betting because that was already illegal. Rather, PASPA banned states – outside those given exemptions – from regulating (and taxing) sports betting.

Despite PASPA’s existence, the American Gaming Association (AGA) estimates at least $150 billion a year is gambled on sports in the U.S. and 97% of that amount was bet illegally.

How soon could states offer sanctioned sports betting?

With PASPA stricken down, states now can establish their own regulated sports betting.

Many are expected to move quickly to establish sports betting as a means to increase their respective coffers. West Virginia Lottery general counsel Danielle Boyd told Legal Sports Report that the state – which already passed a law to authorize sports betting – could have sports betting within 90 days of PASPA's repeal.

"That's the news every one of these states was waiting for," sports and gambling law attorney Daniel Wallach told USA TODAY Sports. "Every one of these states' legislative measures hinged on the finding of the Supreme Court that PASPA is unconstitutional. The ruling allows the states to legislate immediately and for all such laws to become effective immediately."

West Virginia is among 17 states that has passed or have bills making their way through state legislatures to legalize sports betting upon PASPA's repeal, according to the AGA. New Jersey and Mississippi are two other states Wallach said he sees moving the quickest to allow betting.

Now that it's legal, what barriers remain?

Some of the legislation – like one proposal in Pennsylvania – requires a one-time license fee of up to $10 million, along with a tax of as much as 34% on gross receipts, something AGA senior vice president of public affairs Sara Slane told USA TODAY Sports could be a non-starter for potential operators.

"I think their intentions are good," Slane said. "I think some states will have to go back and structure a policy that will allow operators to want to come into the state."

What do pro sports leagues stand to gain?

The NBA and MLB, seeing the potential of PASPA's repeal, have pushed the idea of a 1% sports integrity fee. (This would be taken out of all sports bets before the government gets to tax bets.) While the leagues have pitched this as a way to police point-shaving and other gambling-related corruption, Slane said it would take such a chunk that it would make legalized sports betting non-viable.

"The integrity fee is really a 20% grab on gaming revenue," Slane said.

According to the AGA, the average sports book keeps only about 5% of the money wagered. The fee would also limit how much each state could earn in tax revenue. Nevada sports books have operated for decades without any such fee.

“The major professional sports leagues earn exorbitant profits from ticket sales, concessions, merchandise and advertising rights, and while we welcome their support for our efforts to end the failed ban on sports wagering, we do not agree that it is good policy for the leagues to take money away from law enforcement agencies that neither they nor their athletes have earned,” Chuck Canterbury, national president of the fraternal order of police, said in a statement. “Our professional leagues should focus on their sport and let us focus on enforcing the law.”

Could another federal law be on the horizon?

One has already been proposed, although the bill hasn’t budged since it was outlined about a year ago and was introduced in December.

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) offered up the the Gaming Accountability and Modernization Enhancement (GAME) Act that hasn’t even been considered by a committee. There’s little chance it will get a floor vote as Congress is consumed by other issues ahead of the midterm elections.

Part of the GAME Act is now moot, since it would have allowed states to offer legalized sports betting. But it would also mandate consumer protections, including a ban on underage betting and establish safeguards against compulsive gambling.

"I don't see Frank Pallone's bill as a relevant piece of legislation," said Wallach, a partner at Becker & Poliakoff. "There has been significant movement on the state level with no corresponding movement on the federal level. I think what we will see is a new bill coming out of one of the committees, maybe even his committee (Energy and Commerce)."

Minutes after the Supreme Court's ruling was released, Pallone used the decision to again tout the GAME Act.

"Now that the Supreme Court has struck down this unlawful and confusing law, it is time for Congress to move the GAME Act forward to ensure that consumer protections are in place in any state that decides to implement sports betting,” Pallone said in a statement.

How soon could a new federal law be in place?

Wallach said federal legislation – especially in a gridlocked environment on Capitol Hill –could come well after many states have already started taking bets and likely after the midterm elections.

"At some point, if the legislation starts to diverge from state to state and, more importantly, the leagues don't get what they want at the state level, I think you will see Congress jump into the fray and pass some kind of legislation to create more uniformity across the country," Wallach said.</s>Currently only Nevada offers legalized betting on sports, but New Jersey officials insisted the federal government could not force them to enforce a congressional ban on wagering on professional and college sports. When Congress passed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act in 1992, it did not say federal agents would police sports betting. Instead, it said states may not "sponsor" or "authorize" such gaming.</s>New Jersey officials won a landmark ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court today that could lead many states to legalize betting on college and professional sports.

The Supreme Court justices ruled 7-2 that the federal law that has effectively prohibited sports betting outside Nevada by forcing states to keep prohibitions on the books is unconstitutional. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. Justice Samuel Alito, a Mercer County native, wrote the court’s opinion in the case.

Alito said Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it chooses not to do so, each state is free to act on its own. “Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution,” Alito said.

Former governor Chris Christie had pushed to legalize sports betting to help the state’s ailing casinos and racetracks, and to raise more government revenue. He challenged the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act that was passed by Congress in 1992 to preserve the integrity of the nation’s most popular sports. Lawyers for the state argued that the act ran afoul of the 10th Amendment, which reserves all powers not delegated to the federal government to states.

Today on Twitter, Christie relished his court victory. “It’s a great day for the rights of states and their people to make their own decisions,” Christie said. “New Jersey citizens wanted sports gambling and the federal government had no right to tell them no.”

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy said he is thrilled with the court’s decision.

“The Court finally side with New Jersey and strike down the arbitrary ban on sports betting imposed by Congress decades ago,” Murphy said in a written statement. “New Jersey has long been the lead advocate in fighting this inherently unequal law, and today’s ruling will finally allow for authorized facilities in New Jersey to take the same bets that are legal in other states in our country.”

Murphy also praised Christie and other state officials.

“Today’s victory would not have been possible without the incredible bipartisan effort from so many in our state, particularly former Governor Christie and former State Senator Lesniak,” Murphy said. “I look forward to working with the legislature to enact a law authorizing and regulating sports betting in the very near future.”

The National College Athletic Association and other professional sports organizations had successfully blocked New Jersey in lower courts. Sports officials opposing legalizing gambling have cited concerns over the integrity of games and worries about the economic and social impact of sports gambling. The NCAA opposes all forms of legal and illegal sports wagering. Officials say it jeopardizes the welfare of student-athletes and the intercollegiate athletics community. Unpaid college athletes are especially vulnerable to large amounts of money flowing through their game, NCAA officials have argued.

“Today the United States Supreme Court issued a clear decision that PASPA is unconstitutional, reversing the lower courts that held otherwise,” said Donald Remy, the NCAA’s chief legal officer. “While we are still reviewing the decision to understand the overall implications to college sports, we will adjust sports wagering and championship policies to align with the direction from the court.”

The Supreme Court’s decision is available online.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a case brought by New Jersey challenging the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which prohibited state-sponsored sports betting outside of four grandfathered states, holds that PASPA is unconstitutional, opening the door for all states to authorize sports betting.