The ruling seems to be very narrow and simply interprets this paragraph in federal law:
I don't see it as affecting any State law on the subject. The ruling would simply mean that if you are a party to a conversation (or have the permission of a party), you may record a conversation as long as you are not doing so to use the recording for a criminal activity.(d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.
The court found that the person making the recording was not doing so for a criminal purpose, therefore he did not break federal law. Whether or not he was breaking State law would be another issue.