The Minnesota Supreme Court is currently examining the legality of electronic gambling tables. They hope to confirm if having such equipment at a non-tribal card club violates state agreements allowing Native American tribes to operate video games of chance. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for gaming operations across the state.

Running Aces Faces Tribal Challenge

Running Aces, a horse racetrack and card club, is at the centre of the case. This club offers electronic blackjack, poker, and baccarat using technology from Interblock, a company known for its electronic table games. 

However, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, which operates a casino southwest of Minneapolis, contends that these are video gambling devices. Therefore, the club’s operations infringe upon tribal exclusivity granted under state laws. “The implementation of these games in the metropolitan area takes different customers from the casinos,” said Josh Peterson, the attorney representing the Sioux Community. 

The tribe’s challenge is backed by a 2023 decision from the Minnesota Racing Commission approving a floor plan change at Running Aces including the addition of an electronic dealer. Peterson described the devices as “ just video games where players press buttons,” in contrast to traditional card tables.

Running Aces Defends Its Operations

Running Aces has maintained that its operations are within the bounds of state law. “The community and Running Aces are competitors on equal footing to offer card gambling,” wrote Evan Nelson, the card club’s attorney in a legal brief. 

The Minnesota Court of Appeals previously upheld the Racing Commission’s approval of the facility’s floor plan, concluding that the commission had not exceeded its authority. However, the court did not specify if the electronic tables qualify as video games of chance under state law. 

During arguments on Tuesday, Supreme Court justices pressed both sides to clarify what constitutes a table in the context of Minnesota’s gaming statutes. Neither state law nor the commission’s rules define the maximum number of players permitted per table.

Standing Dispute Remains Key

Running Aces has also challenged the tribe’s right to bring the lawsuit, arguing that the Sioux Community lacks the standing to sue. However, the Minnesota Court of Appeals previously ruled in favour of the tribe’s standing and Supreme Court justices appeared unconvinced by Running Aces’ renewed challenge. 

“The only requirement for standing they needed was a purported harm, specifically the potential for customers to be taken away from the Sioux Community,” Peterson said. The Supreme Court’s decision is expected later in the year, but this could reshape the future of gaming regulation in Minnesota.