The US District Court has dismissed a recent lawsuit submitted by three California Tribes which seeks to force Californian authorities to shut down lawful cardroom games like blackjack and baccarat claiming tribal exclusivity.
The lawsuit, filed against the State of California and Governor Newsom, was dismissed on the basis that the tribes’ compacts did not give them the exclusive rights to these games in California according to the District Court.
California Gaming Association President Kyle Kirkland issued the following statement: “We are pleased that the Court dismissed this lawsuit by these California tribes against the State of California over alleged violations of their tribal gaming compacts.
“The Federal Court ruled that the compacts do not give the tribes exclusivity over gaming in California. This litigation was an attempt to eliminate competition from local cardrooms, threatening thousands of California families and dozens of communities statewide.
“Tens of thousands of Californians count on cardroom living wage jobs to support their families, and dozens of communities rely on the tax revenue we generate to support vital public services. We will not stand by quietly while wealthy tribes try to misuse court resources to hurt our employees, their families and our communities.”
Prior to the case, four California Court of Appeal decisions have found that the cardrooms are permitted to operate non-banked versions of the games and have done so with specific approval of the Attorney General.
The three tribes have claimed that the court proceedings did not acknowledge exclusivity. The ruling detailed: “Plaintiffs (Tribes) argue the most-recently entered Compacts guarantee the same right of exclusivity that was bargained for in the 1999 agreements. The Court disagrees. The Compacts, although recognizing the right of exclusivity provided by the California Constitution, do not include any express terms regarding Defendants’ obligation to preserve that right. In fact, the Compacts contemplate the abrogation of that right, providing the Tribes limited recourse in the event their rights of exclusivity lapse. (Page 8, Lines 12-20)
“Plaintiffs (Tribes) argue the most-recently entered Compacts guarantee the same right of exclusivity that was bargained for in the 1999 agreements. The Court disagrees. The Compacts, although recognizing the right of exclusivity provided by the California Constitution, do not include any express terms regarding Defendants’ obligation to preserve that right. In fact, the Compacts contemplate the abrogation of that right, providing the Tribes limited recourse in the event their rights of exclusivity lapse. (Page 8, Lines 12-20)”
Plaintiffs’ (Tribes) claim requires a showing that the Compacts created an obligation by the State to adopt Plaintiffs’ definition of “banking and percentage card games.” Nothing in the Compacts suggest such an obligation. In fact, Plaintiffs’ own complaint undermines the notion that the terms of the Compacts presupposed how Defendants would interpret and enforce state law. (Page 11, Lines 22-28)
