The Minnesota Supreme Court issued a ruling Tuesday affirming that federally recognized tribes have standing to challenge state racing commission decisions that allegedly permit unlawful gambling expansions at racetracks.
In *In the Matter of the Minnesota Racing Commission's Approval of Running Aces Casino, Hotel & Racetrack's Request to Amend its Plan of Operation*, the court held that the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community can legally challenge the Minnesota Racing Commission's decision allowing Running Aces to add new electronic table games to its operations.
The case arose when Running Aces Casino, Hotel & Racetrack, operated by North Metro Harness Initiative, LLC, requested approval from the Minnesota Racing Commission to amend its operational plan. The amendment would permit the casino to introduce electronic table games, expanding beyond its existing offerings.
The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community opposed this expansion, arguing it violates Minnesota state law and interferes with tribal gaming rights. Under existing tribal-state compacts, federally recognized tribes in Minnesota have exclusive rights to operate certain types of video games of chance within the state.
Minnesota law creates a complex regulatory framework for gambling operations. While tribal casinos operate under federal law and tribal-state compacts that permit video games of chance, non-tribal gambling venues face significant restrictions. State law prohibits racetracks from operating video games of chance and other gambling devices, and limits the number of tables at racetrack card clubs.
The legal challenge highlighted tensions between commercial gambling operations and tribal gaming interests in Minnesota. Seven tribal nations joined the case as amici curiae, including the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, Bois Forte Band of Chippewa, Red Lake Nation, Prairie Island Indian Community, and Lower Sioux Indian Community. Canterbury Park, another racing venue, also filed as amicus curiae.
The central legal question was whether the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community had standing to challenge the Racing Commission's decision. Standing requires that a party demonstrate they have suffered or will suffer a concrete injury that can be traced to the challenged action and that would likely be redressed by a favorable court decision.
The Minnesota Supreme Court's syllabus established that when tribal-state compacts grant federally recognized tribes rights to operate video games of chance, and state law restricts racetracks from operating similar games, tribes have sufficient interest to challenge allegedly unlawful gambling expansions at racetracks.
Justice Hennesy authored the majority opinion, while Justice Gaïtas took no part in the decision. The court's ruling affirms the lower Court of Appeals decision, indicating that both the trial court and appellate court had previously recognized tribal standing in this matter.
The case represents a significant development in Minnesota gambling law, clarifying that tribal nations can serve as watchdogs against potentially unlawful expansions of commercial gambling that might infringe on their compact-protected gaming rights.
Representing the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community were attorneys from Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, including Joshua T. Peterson, Allison J. Mitchell, and Casey L. Matthiesen. Attorney General Keith Ellison's office, through Assistant Attorney General Ryan Pesch, represented the Minnesota Racing Commission. Running Aces was represented by attorneys from Maslon LLP.
The ruling does not resolve the underlying merits of whether Running Aces' electronic table games constitute an unlawful expansion of gambling. Instead, it establishes that tribes have the legal right to challenge such decisions in court, setting the stage for future litigation on the substantive gambling law questions.
This decision could have broader implications for gambling regulation in Minnesota, where tribal gaming represents a significant economic sector. The state's 11 tribal casinos generate substantial revenue and employment, making the protection of tribal gaming rights an important economic and sovereignty issue.
The case also demonstrates the ongoing evolution of gambling law in states with both tribal and commercial gaming operations. As technology creates new forms of gambling, questions about what constitutes prohibited "video games of chance" or permissible table games become increasingly complex.
For Running Aces, the ruling means the tribal challenge to their electronic table games can proceed in court. The casino will need to defend its position that the new games comply with state law restrictions and do not violate tribal gaming compacts.
The Minnesota Racing Commission, meanwhile, faces potential scrutiny of its approval process and the legal standards it applies when reviewing racetrack operational amendments.
Future proceedings will likely focus on the specific characteristics of the electronic table games and whether they fall within prohibited categories under Minnesota law. The outcome could influence how the state regulates emerging gambling technologies at both tribal and non-tribal venues.