The opinion
[J-96-2025, J-97-2025] [MO: Wecht, J.]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT
IN RE: THREE PENNSYLVANIA SKILL : No. 50 MAP 2024
AMUSEMENT DEVICES, ONE GREEN BANK :
BAG CONTAINING $525.00 IN U.S. : Appeal from the Order of the
CURRENCY, AND SEVEN RECEIPTS : Commonwealth Court at No. 707
: CD 2023 entered on November
: 30, 2023, Affirming the Lower
APPEAL OF: COMMONWEALTH OF : Court Order of the Dauphin
PENNSYLVANIA : County Court of Common Pleas at
: No. 2022-CV-06333-MD entered
: on March 23, 2023
:
: ARGUED: November 20, 2025
POM OF PENNSYLVANIA, LLC : No. 2 EAP 2024
:
: Appeal from the Order of the
v. : Commonwealth Court entered on
: January 16, 2024, at No. 418 MD
: 2018.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, :
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, AND CITY OF : ARGUED: November 20, 2025
PHILADELPHIA, :
:
:
APPEAL OF: COMMONWEALTH OF :
PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF :
REVENUE :
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
JUSTICE BROBSON DECIDED: June 15, 2026
I agree with the Majority that the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and
Gaming Act (Gaming Act)1 and Section 5513 of the Crimes Code2 “work in tandem to
1 4 Pa. C.S. §§ 1101-1904.
2 18 Pa. C.S. § 5513.
identify the scope of lawful gambling activities [in Pennsylvania], particularly as it
concerns the lawful operation of slot machines.” (Maj. Op. at 39.) As the Majority
observes, these statutes demonstrate that “activities that are ‘lawfully conducted’ under
the Gaming Act are . . . not prohibited under the Crimes Code, but an activity that is not
lawful under the Gaming Act remains subject to Section 5513(a) of the Crimes Code.”
(Id. at 40 (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted) (quoting 18 Pa. C.S. § 5513(e.1)(4)).)
With this interplay established, I further agree with the Majority that, in In re: Three
Pennsylvania Skill Amusement Devices, One Green Bank Bag Containing $525.00 in
U.S. Currency, and Seven Receipts, 306 A.3d 432 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023) (en banc) (Three
Devices), the Commonwealth Court erred by declining to look to the definition of “slot
machine” provided in the Gaming Act to define that same term as used in
Section 5513(a)(1) of the Crimes Code. This, in turn, led to the Commonwealth Court’s
erroneous holding that the slot machines at issue were not unlawful “slot machines” under
Section 5513(a)(1) of the Crimes Code. Accordingly, I fully join the Majority Opinion
insofar as it reverses the Commonwealth Court’s order in the Three Devices case.
I depart from the Majority, however, with respect to its analysis and disposition of
the appeal in POM of Pennsylvania, LLC v. Department of Revenue, 221 A.3d 717 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2019) (en banc) (POM). That appeal emanates from an order of the
Commonwealth Court that denied an application filed by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, Department of Revenue (Revenue), seeking summary relief on a
counterclaim that Revenue asserted against POM of Pennsylvania, LLC (POM).3 In its
counterclaim, Revenue sought to cast the Gaming Act as a comprehensive regulation of
3 The Commonwealth Court’s order, dated November 20, 2019, became final and
appealable when the Commonwealth Court dismissed the counterclaim by separate order
on January 16, 2024.
[J-96-2025, J-97-2025] [MO: Wecht, J.] - 2
all slot machines in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It asked the Commonwealth
Court to declare
that (a) the Gaming Act regulates the manufacture, possession and
operation of slot machines; (b) the Gaming Act and its attendant regulations
prohibit any person from possessing a slot machine unless lawfully
manufactured by a licensed manufacturer; (c) the Gaming Act prohibits the
possession and operation of any slot machines unless on the premises of
a licensed casino facility; (d) POM’s [machine] is an illegal gambling device
under Title 4; (e) [POM’s machine] is a “slot machine” under 4 Pa. C.S. §[
]1103 and subject to a daily tax of 34% of its gross terminal revenue under
4 Pa. C.S. §[ ]1403(b); and (f) POM is a “manufacturer” and/or “supplier”
under 4 Pa. C.S. §[ ]1103 and is required to have a license issued by the
Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board [(Board)] under 4 Pa. C.S. §§[ ]1317
and/or 1317.1[.]
(Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 106a.) Revenue further sought the entry of an order that
would (a) compel POM “to remove its machines from all Pennsylvania establishments”
and (b) direct POM to “cease further sale and distribution of its machines” in Pennsylvania
until it obtains appropriate licensure by the Board under the Gaming Act. (Id.)
As just explained, the Gaming Act provides for limited authority to engage in
gambling that would otherwise be illegal under Section 5513 of the Crimes Code. To my
mind, the Gaming Act does so not simply by how it defines terms like “slot machine,”
“manufacturer,” and “supplier” in Section 1103, but also by how it uses those defined
terms in the law’s operative provisions. Specifically, the Gaming Act only permits limited
lawful gambling, inclusive of slot machines, in the Commonwealth in facilities licensed by
the Board—i.e., “slot machine licensees”—and caps the number of slot machine licenses
that the Board may issue. 4 Pa. C.S. §§ 1103 (providing definitions of “slot machine
license” and “slot machine licensee”), 1301-1305.1 (outlining categories of slot machine
licenses), 1307 (setting caps on number of slot machine licenses).
As for manufacturers, the Gaming Act requires any person who seeks to
manufacture slot machines “for use in this Commonwealth” to obtain a license from the
[J-96-2025, J-97-2025] [MO: Wecht, J.] - 3
Board. 4 Pa. C.S. § 1317.1(a). As noted above, however, slot machines are only lawful
“for use in this Commonwealth” in facilities licensed by the Board. Accordingly, a
manufacturer license is required for any person who seeks to manufacture a slot machine
for use in this Commonwealth by a Board-licensed facility in the Commonwealth. Even if
one falls within the definition of a “manufacturer” under Section 1103 of the Gaming Act,
if a manufacturer does not seek permission to use its slot machine in Board-licensed
facilities in the Commonwealth, it is not required to secure a manufacturer license under
Section 1317.1. Indeed, a manufacturer license from the Board is not available to a
manufacturer that exclusively offers its machines for use in unlicensed facilities within the
Commonwealth.
As for suppliers, the Gaming Act only requires a person to secure a supplier license
from the Board if that person seeks “to provide slot machines . . . to a slot machine
licensee, an interactive gaming certificate holder or an interactive gaming operator within
this Commonwealth through a contract with a licensed manufacturer.” 4 Pa. C.S.
§ 1317(a). Accordingly, even if one falls within the definition of “supplier” in Section 1103
of the Gaming Act, if a supplier does not seek to supply slot machines to licensed or
certificated facilities through a contract with a licensed manufacturer, then the supplier
need not secure a license under the Gaming Act.
While POM may technically fall within the definitions of “manufacturer” and
“supplier” within Section 1103 of the Gaming Act, and its machines may likewise qualify
as “slot machines” thereunder, POM does not purport to manufacture or supply its slot
machines for use within licensed or certified gaming facilities under the Board’s
jurisdiction. Indeed, POM’s activities within the Commonwealth that are the subject of
these appeals exclusively relate to the manufacture and supply of slot machines for use
in facilities that are not licensed by the Board and, therefore, are engaging in illegal
[J-96-2025, J-97-2025] [MO: Wecht, J.] - 4
gambling in violation of Section 5513 of the Crimes Code. Manufacturer and supplier
licenses under the Gaming Act are not available to manufacturers and suppliers who seek
to facilitate illegal gaming in the Commonwealth by placing their machines in unlicensed
facilities.
For these reasons, I would conclude that Revenue is not entitled to its requested
relief to the extent that request was premised on the theory that POM’s activities of
manufacturing and supplying slot machines to unlicensed facilities within this
Commonwealth required POM to secure a manufacturer license and/or supplier license
under the Gaming Act and that the daily gross terminal revenue tax of 34% that slot
machine licensees must pay under Section 1403(b) of the Gaming Act applies to POM’s
slot machines in unlicensed facilities throughout the Commonwealth. As such, and any
flawed reasoning aside, the Commonwealth Court appropriately denied Revenue’s
application for summary relief and dismissed its counterclaim. Accordingly, I would affirm
the order of the Commonwealth Court in the POM matter.
Justice Mundy joins this concurring and dissenting opinion.
[J-96-2025, J-97-2025] [MO: Wecht, J.] - 5