ST. PAUL, Minn. (CN) - The Minnesota Supreme Court is tasked with deciding whether off-reservation electronic gambling tables violate the state's deal with Native American tribes that gives them exclusive rights to video games of chance.

The court heard arguments Tuesday about the implementation of Interblock technology, which allows for electronic blackjack, poker and baccarat tables at Running Aces, a horse track about 40 minutes north of the Twin Cities. 

While the horse track also serves as a card club, it is barred from operating gambling devices by both state statute and agreements between the state and the 11 federally recognized tribes in Minnesota.

"The implementation of these games in the metropolitan area takes different customers from the casinos," said Josh Peterson, who represented the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, which runs a casino about 27 minutes away from the Twin Cities in a southwest suburb of Minneapolis. 

Peterson told the court Tuesday that the devices Running Aces uses are just video games where players press buttons, as opposed to the traditional felt tables iconic of any casino or gambling den.

"The community and Running Aces are competitors on equal footing to offer card playing gambling," Evan Nelson, attorney for Running Aces, wrote in the race track's brief. "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."

While the Sioux Community has focused on the legality of the devices used by Running Aces, this lawsuit stems from the Minnesota Racing Commission's approval of the card club's proposal to change its floor plan to add an additional electronic dealer in 2023.

The Sioux Community claims this addition exceeds the 80-table limit placed on card clubs. 

In its ruling upholding the commission's decision to approve the plan, the Minnesota Court of Appeals did not address whether the devices constituted electronic games of chance. Instead, the court said the commission did not exceed its authority in approving the card club's plan.  

While defining video games of chance was at issue before the court, justices were also focused on what precisely the definition of "table" means concerning card games. 

Although there is a statutory limit of 80 tables, the number of players allowed at a table is undefined in both statute and by the state Racing Commission. 

Josh Peterson, an assistant Minnesota attorney general who represented the commission Tuesday, told the court that the commission did not consider its approval of Running Aces' plan as revolutionary. 

"The only real issue before the commission was whether the new floor plan exceeded the statutory limit on the number of tables used for card playing at a card club," Peterson said Tuesday, adding that the number of customers at a table does not apply to the number of tables in a card club. 

However, several justices seemed perplexed about what exactly the court is supposed to do regarding that limit, saying that the Legislature clearly had an intent to limit customers because of the number of players who can play at a traditional table. 

"It seems silly to apply a dictionary definition to a word that clearly has some specialized meaning, and yet, there's nothing in our record that introduces really a solidified industry standard for what table for playing cards means," Associate Justice Sarah Hennessy told Pesch. 

Pesch replied that the commission had previously decided on a limit of seven to 11 players and would consider each proposal on its merit. 

Associate Justice Paul Thissen chuckled at Pesch's response. 

"Is it really a case-by-case basis?" Thissen asked, questioning if the commission could have authorized the expansion for Running Aces but forced them to back down from an 11-player limit to seven.

Pesch repeatedly refused to nail down a definitive player limit regarding electronic tables when asked by justices, instead saying the commission would defer to the courts and respect their decision.

In addition, Running Aces has continued to argue the Sioux Community does not have standing, though the commission has since dropped its claim after the state Court of Appeals decided that the tribe does. 

Justices also seemed unconvinced by Running Aces' arguments on standing Tuesday.

Peterson, the tribe's lawyer, told justices that the only requirement for standing they needed was a purported harm, specifically the potential for customers to be taken away from the Sioux Community.

Source: Courthouse News Service