Did Minnesota Negotiate Away Taking Its Video Game Law to the Supreme Court?

As GamePolitics reported yesterday, the ESA announced that Minnesota would reimburse $65,000 in legal fees to the video game industry over the state’s failed 2006 "fine the buyer" video game law.

In our coverage, we mentioned that the move apparently signalled that Minnesota would not be taking the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, its only remaining legal recourse. We’ve got a call into the office of Attorney General Lori Swanson (left) on the Supreme Court issue, but Finance & Commerce now seems to have nailed that part of the story down:

Attorney General Lori Swanson’s decision not to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was “practical,” according to spokesman Benjamin Wogsland, who pointed out that the nation’s highest court takes “less than 1 percent of discretionary cases every year.”

But Paul Smith, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said Monday that the state decided not to pursue the case further because of a deal that would require the attorney general’s office to pay a reduced amount in fees owed to plaintiff’s lawyers. Smith could not say what the reduced amount was, though a court filing from May 19 shows that the plaintiffs’ lawyers were owed nearly $84,000. Woglsand did not return calls Monday.

GP: If Paul Smith is correct, Minnesota essentially bargained away – for $19,000 plus future legal fees –  its opportunity to take its argument before the U.S. Supreme Court. Given all that the state had already invested in the case, that would seem a rather curious decision.

It would have been fascinating – and, yes, risky – for the Supreme Court to consider a video game law, especially given Justice Antonin Scalia’s comments to Law of Play blogger Anthony Prestia that game legislation might be constitutional.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    oto kirlama says:

    I’m all for freedom of ttnet vitamin speech and allowing rent a car game makers to put whatever they want in games, but there’s one thing about this app that has me scratching my head.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but from araç kiralama the previous article araba kiralama on this I gathered that players can use Google maps in-game to find the other (real-life?) dealers in their area.  If this is the case, has travesti anyone considered what’s stopping someone from using this app to actually move drugs between hands for reals?

    But majority araba kiralama of their outrage araç kiralama stems from what it could DO TO children, not the content itself.  Talk to one of these people and you’ll find they don’t think any books kiralık araba should be banned from children.  Mention American Psycho and they talk about kiralık araç the redeeming value of using imagination to construct a story.  Reading, no matter what the content, is largely viewed as a consequenceless activity for people of any age.  The reason why I mention American Psycho is because of the content itself.  Gaming never has and likely never will have any scenes where someone has sex with a severed head.  Not gonna happen.  Yet despite this, they’ll fight tooth and nail to protect their children from two boys kissing in Bully but whatever they read is harmless… yeah.

    The entire arguement is kiralık oto based upon a social normality inflicted by luddites who can’t figure out the controls for Halo so it’s frightening and terrifying and obviously the cause of youth violence on the rise even though, in reality, it’s in decline (which is actually a HUGE suprise given minibüs kiralama the economies status).  In  a perfect world, we would have parents that actually parent.  The idea of sales restrictions on media on oto kiralama any form to accomidate parental unwillingness to get involved with their child’s life is the real problem to me.  Here I am, 32 years old, and being held up at a self-scan rent a car needing to show ID before I can buy a $10 M rated game all because Soccer Momthra can’t be bothered to look at the crap Billy Genericallystupidson does in his free time.  It’s too hard for her, so I have to suffer?

  2. 0
    Chadachada ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Frankly I’m kinda glad it didn’t go to the Surpeme Court yet, with its recent 5-4 ruling on keeping the second amendment in Washington DC…If the 2nd amendment came close to being restricted, what’s stopping the 1st from the same treatment?

  3. 0
    lumi says:

    I’m going to take this one and be thankful.  Saves tax dollars in the long run, and despite the missed opportunity to see the Supreme Court rule on VG legislation…we won’t have to see the Supreme Court rule on VG legislation.

  4. 0

    Keep in mind that what Scalia said was just a maybe. If presented with all the information he may decide otherwise. Also, regardless of his stance, he’s only one of many Justices.

     -If shit and bricks were candy and tits, we’d all be livin’ large. For information on games and psychology, look up: Jonathan Freedman(2002)Block & Crain(2007)Grand Theft Childhood, by Harvard Medical School researchers Larry Kutner and Cheryl Olson

  5. 0
    Shoehorn O'Plenty ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I imagine it was an exercise in damage limitation. They had already blown a large amount of money on this futile effort, bringing it to the Supreme court would have just extended the whole thing, costing them even more in attorneys fees.

  6. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    We need to gut shrubs cronies in the supreme court… I’d rather have those that follow the spirit of the law and the rights we hold dear than big biz shills who get there rocks off playing ultra fundie……………

    I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
    (in need of a bad overhaul)


  7. 0
    Mackenzie ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    This strikes me as a rational decision.  If they had petitioned for the Supreme Court to hear the case, it is a near certainty that the Court would decline.  Aside from the statistical infrequency of cases being accepted, this one presents very few of the circumstances that the Court looks for when it decides whether to accept the case (I count only one: that it pertains to a constitutional rule of broad application).  Given that it would almost certainly never be heard by the Court, this settlement is like free money.

Leave a Reply