All 50 states are now free to sponsor gambling on sporting events.
The Supreme Court's ruling Monday authorizing state-sanctioned sports betting could have profound implications for a host of other issues.
"We are very excited about the likely legalization of sports wagering in the United States".
The 1992 law at issue in the case bars state-authorized sports gambling with exceptions for Nevada, Montana, Oregon and DE, states that had approved some form of sports wagering before the law took effect.
Travis Wussow, general counsel and vice president for public policy at ERLC, told the Baptist Press that the decision will lead to a slippery slope of harm to society. "Of course. But if you're asking me had I rather be bitten by a Black Widow or a Brown Recluse, my answer is neither", he said, according to Kentucky Today.
That ruling strikes down a federal ban in place since 1992 that restricts sports betting for most states. "Regardless of the particulars of any future sports betting law, the integrity of our game remains our highest priority".
It's not like casino gaming is struggling in Oklahoma. The measure "unequivocally dictates what a state legislature may and may not do", he wrote. As Justice Stephen Breyer put it in his concurring opinion, "the only problem" with the challenged law "lies in its means, not its end". Outside court, however, leaders of all but the National Football League have shown varying degrees of openness to legalized sports gambling.