A legal conflict concerning electronic gambling has escalated to the Minnesota Supreme Court, where it will decide whether off-reservation electronic tables violate state agreements that grant Native American tribes exclusive rights to video games of chance. The case centers around Running Aces, a racetrack and card club located north of Minneapolis-St. Paul, which introduced touchscreen-operated electronic tables that simulate traditional card games like blackjack, baccarat, and poker using Interblock technology.

The core dispute: tribal rights vs. off-reservation gambling:

The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, which operates a casino southwest of Minneapolis, claims that the introduction of these electronic tables at Running Aces breaches state agreements by infringing on the tribe’s exclusive gaming rights. Tribal attorney Josh Peterson argued that the machines used by Running Aces are essentially digital slot machines, rather than traditional card tables, and thus fall under the tribe’s exclusive right to operate such games. Peterson emphasized that this electronic format, which allows players to interact with the game via touchscreens rather than real dealers, diverges from the standard “felt tables” seen in casinos.

On the opposing side, Running Aces’ legal representative, Evan Nelson, argued that the venue’s operations are fully compliant with state law. He contended that the electronic tables are not “gambling devices” under the statute, downplaying the tribe’s concerns about customer loss. According to Nelson, there is insufficient evidence that these machines have caused significant customer displacement from tribal casinos.

The conflict traces back to the Minnesota Racing Commission’s 2023 approval of Running Aces’ plan to reconfigure its gaming floor and add an additional electronic dealer. This change was contested by the Sioux Community, who argued that it exceeded the statutory limit of 80 tables for card clubs. The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the commission’s decision, stating that the Racing Commission had not overstepped its authority, and did not address the question of whether the machines counted as electronic games of chance.

Despite the appeals court’s ruling, the Minnesota Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether these electronic devices are considered gambling devices under state law, and specifically whether they fall within the tribe’s exclusive rights. In particular, justices have focused on the definition of “table” in relation to card games, as the state statute imposes a cap on the number of tables but does not specify the number of players allowed per table.

What does ‘table’ mean in gambling terms?

One of the key issues before the court is the definition of the term “table” in the context of card games. The law limits card clubs to 80 tables, but there is no clear specification regarding the number of players allowed per table. During oral arguments, several justices raised concerns about the lack of clarity on whether the number of players at a table should be factored into the statutory limit. Associate Justice Sarah Hennessy noted that the word “table” may have a specialized meaning in the gaming industry, which has not been adequately defined in the case record. As reported by Courthouse News Service, Justice Paul Thissen also questioned the flexibility of the commission’s interpretation of these guidelines.

The justices’ confusion over the definition of “table” reflects broader concerns about how the regulations apply to new forms of electronic gambling. The Racing Commission has previously adopted a flexible approach, allowing between seven and 11 players per table. However, the lack of a concrete standard has led to uncertainty in the legal interpretation, with some justices wondering whether the commission could have restricted the number of players at these electronic tables.

In addition to the technical questions about the nature of the gaming devices, Running Aces continues to challenge the Sioux Community’s legal standing in the case. The racetrack argues that the tribe does not have the right to bring the lawsuit. However, the state Court of Appeals previously ruled that the Sioux Community does have standing, a decision that the Minnesota Supreme Court will now revisit.

During the proceedings, Peterson, representing the Sioux Community, stressed that the tribe only needs to prove that it has been harmed by the approval of these electronic tables. The harm, Peterson explained, arises from the potential loss of customers to Running Aces, which could directly impact the tribe’s casino revenues.

As the Minnesota Supreme Court deliberates on the case, its decision will have significant implications for how the state regulates electronic gambling, particularly in relation to tribal casinos. The outcome could set a precedent for future cases involving off-reservation gambling devices and the rights of Native American tribes under state agreements.

The court is expected to deliver its decision later this year, which will clarify the legal standing of electronic gambling devices and potentially reshape Minnesota’s gaming landscape.