The state Supreme Court on Friday refused to issue a sweeping directive to all S.C. judges that SLED wanted in order to slow the spread of video gaming machines.

But the full court endorsed a Dec. 19 decision by Chief Justice Jean Toal that allowed police to resume seizing Chess Challenge II machines.

The battle over Chess Challenge II became the state’s most hotly contested video gaming case and led to Friday’s ruling.

The State Law Enforcement Division asked the justices for an extraordinary order that would ban judges from ruling on more than the machines brought to them in seizure hearings.

Though the court declined, it accomplished SLED’s goal of stopping Chess Challenge II and warning other machine distributors who might try for backdoor legal victories, SLED Chief Robert Stewart said.

The quick action by the justices to block a lower-court judge, “sends a strong message that these declaratory judgments where a whole class of machines are declared legal will not stand,” Stewart said.

State law and other Supreme Court rulings have said games must be judged machine by machine, Stewart and other gaming regulators say.

But twice since video poker became illegal in July 2000, circuit court judges have ruled a whole group of machines legal — both were Chess Challenges made by the same Berkeley County-based company, Castle King.

Judge Perry Buckner of Allendale County ruled the Chess Challenge II machines legal on Oct. 29 and banned police from seizing them anywhere in the state.

That triggered the legal fight.

Buckner ruled without SLED’s knowledge, and Stewart had to turn to a private lawyer after a legal skirmish with Attorney General Henry McMaster over allowing SLED into an appeal.

After Toal temporarily granted SLED’s request to block Buckner, agents resumed seizing the machines late last month.

But the $3,500 devices had been moved out of South Carolina, Stewart said.

McMaster said Friday he wishes the justices had spelled out more clearly the legal procedures for declaring machines legal or illegal.

“This fight isn’t over,” said McMaster, who later joined SLED’s request to the high court.

McMaster said he plans to ask the court to hear the facts of the Chess Challenge II case and issue clearer limits on the powers of judges in deciding which machines are legal.

“We’re going to pursue the appeal vigorously to get the procedures clear so we don’t have to keep fighting these skirmishes,” McMaster said.

Yet state gaming regulators say the justices answered that question in a February 2000 ruling.

Reach LeBlanc at (803) 771-8664 or cleblanc@thestate.com.