The Supreme Court on Monday appeared willing to lift a federal ban on sports betting.

In a case closely watched by at least 32 states, New Jersey told the high court that Congress overstepped its authority when it banned states in 1992 from taking bets on sports.

For the states, the allure of sports gambling is obvious: more than $150 billion is wagered each year on sports, according to the American Gaming Association.

Cash-strapped states would love to get their hands on some of that loot.

The federal law banned sports gambling except for in Nevada, Montana, Oregon and Delaware — where it was already established.

NJ Gov. Chris Christie pushed through a state law in 2012 to allow sports betting.

Immediately, the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL and the NCAA sued New Jersey to stop its plan.

Christie lost a battle in federal court — and again in a federal appeals court before taking his case to Washington.

A majority of the justices on the conservative-leaning Supreme Court appeared to agree that the 1992 law violates states’ rights.

The law “leaves in place a state law that the state does not want,” Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s swing-vote, said during the Monday hearing.

“What went on today didn’t have much to do with gambling, it was more about states’ rights,” Mark Hichar, a partner at Hinckley Allen, told The Post.

The federal law, called the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, prohibits states from making laws that regulate sports gambling — a prohibition that New Jersey argues violates its 10th Amendment rights.

“The federal government could have had a ban on sports betting. But that’s not what the PASPA law does,” said Hichar, who represents clients who stand to gain if the laws are struck down.

“There’s no accountability. You’re making the states follow a federal policy contrary to the wishes, perhaps, of the voters in the states.”

While more conservative justices, like Chief Justice John Roberts, are usually against regulation, Christie’s argument appeared to gain traction with more liberal members like Justice Stephen Breyer.

The federal government doesn’t have the right to “tell the state how to legislate,” Breyer said from the bench during the hour-long hearing.

While it’s possible that the Supreme Court could strike down the law, the justices could also rule more narrowly and focus solely on the state law, Hichar said.

The 1992 anti-gambling law was passed after a Boston College rigging scandal in the late 1970s.

While the leagues argue that gambling can compromise the integrity of the sport, the NBA and MLB have softened their stance and are open to regulated sports betting.

But even the NFL, which has been one of the most stringent voices against expanding gambling, has allowed the Raiders to move from Oakland to Las Vegas by 2020 — potentially letting some gambling happen locally.

A decision on the case is expected by the end of June.