The Minnesota Supreme Court is set to determine whether off-reservation electronic gambling tables violate the state’s agreement granting Native American tribes exclusive rights to video games of chance.

Running Aces Introduces Interblock Technology

On Tuesday, the court heard arguments regarding Interblock technology, which allows electronic blackjack, poker, and baccarat tables at Running Aces, a horse track and card club located north of the Twin Cities.

Despite its status as a card club, Running Aces is barred from operating gambling devices under state law and existing agreements between Minnesota and its 11 federally recognized tribes.

Concerns from the Sioux Community

Josh Peterson, representing the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, emphasized that these electronic games compete with tribal casinos, potentially drawing customers away.

“The implementation of these games in the metropolitan area takes different customers from the casinos,” Peterson told the court.

He further argued that the electronic tables resemble video games, where players press buttons instead of playing on traditional felt tables found in casinos.

Running Aces Defends Its Operations

Evan Nelson, an attorney for Running Aces, countered that the card club simply offers competitive gambling options without directly impacting Sioux casinos.

“While theoretically, if more people go to Running Aces for card playing, fewer will go to the community, there is no evidence that this is the case,” Nelson stated.

Regulatory Challenges and Legal Limits

The lawsuit originated from the Minnesota Racing Commission’s approval of a floor plan expansion at Running Aces, allowing the addition of an electronic dealer in 2023.

The Sioux Community contends this change exceeds the 80-table limit imposed on card clubs.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the commission’s decision, though it did not rule on whether these electronic devices constituted video games of chance.

Defining ‘Tables’ and Player Limits

Another key issue before the Supreme Court is defining what constitutes a "table" in gambling operations.

Although Minnesota law restricts card clubs to 80 tables, it does not specify the number of players per table, leading to confusion among justices during the hearing.

Associate Justice Sarah Hennessy noted the challenge in interpreting the term: “It seems silly to apply a dictionary definition to a word that clearly has some specialized meaning.”

Associate Justice Paul Thissen questioned whether setting a player limit should be determined on a case-by-case basis, rather than establishing fixed regulations.