March Madness betting in Las Vegas in 2018. (Ethan Miller/Getty Images)
BOSTON (WBZ-AM) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday morning that the federal ban on state-sanctioned sports betting is unconstitutional.
The Justices' decision came in a case from New Jersey, which has fought for years to legalize gambling on baseball, football, basketball, and other sports at casinos and racetracks in the state.
In reaction to the decision, Gov. Charlie Baker said it's worth taking a look at whether or not it would be right for Massachusetts--but he added that there are pros and cons.
"There are costs and benefits associated with this sort of stuff, as there always are," he said. "We're opening up two big casinos, resort-destination casinos. We already have a slots parlor. There are costs and benefits that come with that."
Gov. Baker said the right thing to do now is to sit down with legislative leaders and take a look at any potential opportunities that might exist in Massachusetts.
He added that he's never gambled on sporting events before.
University of New Hampshire Law proferssor Mike McCann, a legal analyst for Sports Illustrated, told WBZ NewsRadio 1030 that the big takeaway from the decision is that any state can now be Nevada.
"That's a big change, because over the last 20-30 years, states have been prohibited from having sports betting, unless they fall within the exception permitted by the federal bill," he said.
That bill allowed Nevada to have legalized sports betting. Now, any state can have it.
WBZ NewsRadio 1030's Carl Stevens reports