Supreme Court debates legal limits on online gambling in Minnesota
The online gaming industry in Minnesota is at the centre of an intense legal and regulatory debate following a recent hearing held last week in the state Supreme Court. The case under review centres on the approval of the addition of electronic gaming tables at the Running Aces Casino, Hotel & Racetrack card club. This decision has reignited discussions about exclusive limits and rights in the online and land-based gaming industries.
The conflict arises in an environment where tribal 바카라s, such as those operated by the , have historically maintained exclusive rights to electronic and video gambling under state and federal agreements. The expansion of digital gaming technologies, particularly electronic tables that simulate traditional card games has created a grey area in the interpretation of the law and competition between tribal and non-tribal operators.
Tribal position: defending exclusivity and the marketplace
The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, the leading tribal 바카라 operator in the state, argues that the introduction of electronic tables in Running Aces constitutes a violation of exclusivity agreements. According to their arguments, these devices should be considered “gaming devices” or “video games of chance” under current regulations and, therefore, can only be operated in tribal 바카라s. The tribal community says that letting these games happen in non-tribal places could hurt their businesses’ ability to make money and weaken the laws that give them control over online gaming in Minnesota.
In addition, according to the document prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office, the community argues that the Commission’s decision exceeds the legal limit of 80 tables for card clubs, as electronic stations multiply gaming capacity without a clear definition of what constitutes a “table” under the law. For tribal representatives, the lack of regulatory clarity opens the door to uncontrolled expansion of digital gaming outside of Indian territories, with the resulting impact on revenue collection and state control.
Running Aces’ defence: innovation and regulatory compliance
For its part, Running Aces defends that electronic table technology is a legitimate extension of card games permitted in non-tribal clubs. It argues that these devices do not fit the legal definition of “gaming device” or “video game of chance,” as they replicate the experience of a traditional table, only with electronic assistance and no physical dealer. The club states that the Commission’s approval is in line with the law and meets the need to update game options, enabling it to compete in a market that is becoming increasingly digital.
Running Aces also rejects the accusation of exceeding the table limit, stressing that the law neither specifies the number of players per table nor expressly prohibits the technology used. From its perspective, the Commission’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and cannot be considered arbitrary or capricious. Furthermore, the company highlights that the tribal community does have standing to challenge the decision, but this does not imply that their arguments are sufficient to reverse the authorisation.
Key legal issues and Supreme Court debate
The litigation raises several key issues for online gaming in the state of Minnesota. The Supreme Court must decide whether electronic tables are equatable to gaming devices banned outside tribal 바카라s and whether the Commission has the authority to approve their use without a formal change in regulation. Another crucial issue is the interpretation of the 80-table limit: does each electronic station count as a separate table, or are they part of a single unit?
During the hearing, the judges expressed doubts about the legal definition of “table” and the Commission’s ability to regulate emerging technologies without a clear regulatory basis. The ruling, still pending, will have direct implications for competition in the industry and the expansion of digital gaming in Minnesota. The decision could set a precedent for tribal exclusivity and the regulation of new forms of online and electronic gaming.
Can I operate in Minnesota if I am not a tribal member?
- If you plan to offer online gaming in Minnesota, you should be aware that current law reserves electronic gaming and video gambling for tribal 바카라s.
- Non-tribal card clubs may operate traditional card games and, under the current interpretation, electronic tables only if they are not considered prohibited “gaming devices.”
- There is no absolute prohibition for non-tribal operators, but the Minnesota Racing Commission must approve any technological innovation that tribal operators may challenge.
- The market is currently under judicial review, with the definition of “table” and the validity of new technologies being scrutinised by the Supreme Court.
- Before investing, consult with legal experts and closely monitor the Supreme Court ruling, as it could change the regulatory framework and business opportunities in the gaming sector.
This article was first published in Spanish on 8 June 2025.
