## Facts

- Alabama law generally makes gambling illegal, with limited county-specific constitutional amendments allowing only traditional bingo in certain locales.
- The State of Alabama learned that several related companies and entities were operating electronic gaming machines in Alabama that the State contended were illegal gambling devices, not lawful bingo.
- The challenged machines resembled and functioned like slot machines: they were fast-paced, required little to no skill, and lacked features associated with traditional bingo, such as meaningful, simultaneous competition and interactive play tied to a recognizable bingo game format.
- In 2017, after local law-enforcement efforts did not stop the operations, the State filed separate civil actions in Macon County and Lowndes County seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to abate the alleged illegal gambling as a public nuisance.
- In Macon County, the defendants included Epic Tech, LLC, K.C. Economic Development, LLC d/b/a VictoryLand, and the Macon County sheriff in his official capacity.
- In Lowndes County, the defendants included White Hall Enrichment Advancement Team d/b/a Southern Star Entertainment and related White Hall entities and officials.
- The State sought to enjoin continued operation of the machines and related gambling activities, arguing the operations violated Alabama’s criminal gambling statutes and fell outside any local bingo authorization.
- The Macon Circuit Court denied, in effect, the State’s request for preliminary injunctive relief.
- The Lowndes Circuit Court denied the State’s request for permanent injunctive relief and dismissed counterclaims filed by White Hall entities against the State.
- The State appealed the denials of injunctive relief, and White Hall cross-appealed the dismissal of its counterclaims. The Alabama Supreme Court consolidated the appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial courts erred by refusing to enjoin the defendants’ electronic gaming operations as a public nuisance when the State presented evidence the machines were illegal slot-type gambling devices rather than lawful bingo.
2. Whether county or municipal actions, local enactments, or local constitutional bingo amendments could authorize the challenged electronic machines despite Alabama’s general prohibition on gambling.
3. Whether the Lowndes Circuit Court properly dismissed White Hall’s counterclaims against the State.

## Decision

- The Court reversed the Macon Circuit Court’s order denying, in effect, preliminary injunctive relief and remanded with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction within 30 days enjoining the Macon County gambling operations.
- The Court reversed the Lowndes Circuit Court’s order denying permanent injunctive relief and remanded with instructions to enter a permanent injunction within 30 days enjoining the Lowndes County gambling operations.
- The Court affirmed the Lowndes Circuit Court’s dismissal of White Hall’s counterclaims against the State.

## Legal Principles

- Alabama’s constitutional and statutory bans on gambling control statewide, subject only to narrowly read exceptions expressly adopted by the constitution.
- Local constitutional bingo amendments permit only traditional bingo as defined by Alabama precedent; they do not authorize slot-machine-style electronic gambling.
- Machines that operate like slot machines—rapid play, minimal skill, and limited or no interactive bingo-style play—do not qualify as lawful bingo under the local amendments.
- Ongoing illegal gambling operations may be treated as a public nuisance, and the State may seek declaratory and injunctive relief in a civil action to abate that nuisance.
- Local officials and local governmental bodies lack power to legalize or immunize conduct that state criminal law forbids.
- Claims against the State seeking relief inconsistent with the State’s enforcement authority may be barred, including on immunity grounds; dismissal of such counterclaims is proper when no legally viable claim is stated.

## Conclusion

The Alabama Supreme Court held that the electronic gaming operations at issue were illegal slot-type gambling rather than lawful traditional bingo allowed by limited local amendments, and that the State was entitled to injunctions to abate the resulting public nuisance in both Macon and Lowndes Counties; it also upheld dismissal of White Hall’s counterclaims against the State.


State of Alabama v. Epic Tech, LLC, 378 So. 3d 467, 2022 WL 4588777 (2022)