The Minnesota Supreme Court is currently deliberating whether the use of electronic gambling tables at a non-tribal card club contravenes state agreements that provide Native American tribes with exclusive rights to operate video gaming machines.
Central to this case is Running Aces, a horse racetrack and card club situated approximately 40 minutes north of Minneapolis, which employs Interblock technology to offer electronic versions of blackjack, poker, and baccarat. The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, which operates a casino southwest of Minneapolis, contends that these electronic games are essentially video gambling, thereby violating the exclusive rights enshrined in state compacts.
“The introduction of these games into the metropolitan area diverts customers from the casinos,” stated Josh Peterson, the legal representative for the Sioux Community.
This legal conflict originates from a 2023 decision by the Minnesota Racing Commission, which approved a revised floor plan for Running Aces that featured the addition of an electronic dealer. The tribe argues that this change caused the facility to exceed the legal limit of 80 tables allocated for card clubs and that the electronic tables serve as illegal gambling machines.
Peterson characterized the devices as “merely video games where participants push buttons,” as opposed to traditional felt-topped table games.
Running Aces has defended its business operations, asserting compliance with state regulations. Attorney Evan Nelson stated in a legal document, “The community and Running Aces compete on equal terms in offering card gambling.”
The Minnesota Court of Appeals previously affirmed the Racing Commission’s endorsement but refrained from addressing whether the electronic devices qualify as games of chance. Instead, the court clarified that the commission had not overstepped its jurisdiction.
During the arguments on Tuesday, Supreme Court justices sought clarity from both parties regarding the definition of a “table,” as neither the state statute nor the commission’s regulations provide a specification on player limits per table.
“It seems unreasonable to apply a dictionary definition to a term that clearly possesses a specialized meaning, and yet there’s nothing in our records that offers a solidified industry standard for what constitutes a card table,” remarked Associate Justice Sarah Hennessy.
The attorney for Running Aces, representing the Racing Commission, indicated that player limits generally vary between seven and eleven per table and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This prompted skepticism from Associate Justice Paul Thissen, who questioned, “Is it truly a case-by-case basis?” after indicating that the commission could potentially modify limits without a consistent justification.
The issue of legal standing was also discussed, as Running Aces initially asserted that the Sioux Community did not have standing to file a lawsuit. However, the state Court of Appeals confirmed the tribe’s standing, and the justices of the Supreme Court appeared unconvinced by Running Aces’ renewed contention.
“The only requirement for standing that they needed was a claimed injury, specifically the possibility of losing customers to the Sioux Community,” explained Peterson, the tribe’s attorney.