California cardrooms got a win on Tuesday when a judge ruled that the state’s proposed new restrictions on table games cannot be implemented as planned.
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Darwin determined that the state Department of Justice’s Bureau of Gambling Control overstepped its bounds by proposing statewide limits on the kind of gambling that can be offered in state cardrooms. Darwin said that major gambling policy changes such as these can only be implemented through legislative action, not through statewide regulations.
The California Gaming Association (CGA) wrote in a statement that the court invalidated the rules on the grounds that the Bureau does not have the authority to restrict games on a statewide basis.
“For more than a year, we have said this case is about far more than gaming,” wrote CGA President Kyle Kirkland. “It is about whether the Attorney General and his regulators can bypass the legislature and unilaterally rewrite decades of established law. Today, the court delivered a clear answer: they cannot.”
A request for comment from the California Nations Indian Gaming Association (CNIGA) was not returned as of publication.
How was California planning to limit cardroom games?
California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office announced in February two new approved rule packages and said it intended to make the new rules effective as of April 1. The regulations banned blackjack-style games in cardrooms completely and altered how other player-dealer table games that utilize third-party proposition players (TPPs) can operate.
The CGA, the California Cardroom Alliance (CCA) and the Communities for California Cardrooms (CCC) filed lawsuits in San Francisco Superior Court and called the new rules “an unprecedented power grab” by Bonta’s office. Arguing that the proposals violated state laws in multiple ways, the groups claimed that cardrooms across the state stood to lose at least 50% of their business as a result.
Regulators estimated that cardrooms stood to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue and hundreds of jobs, while tribal casinos would gain more than $200m from having card game competition eliminated.
Drawing’s new ruling came after the judge granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction in May, which blocked California from enforcing the new regulations while the case continued.
It’s all political, says California Gaming Association chief
In the CGA statement on Tuesday, Kirkland called the court ruling “a lifeline” for not only cardrooms but local communities.
“If these regulations had been allowed to stand, the consequences would have been devastating for working families, local businesses, and the cities that rely on cardroom revenues …” he added.
The CGA President also claimed that the new regulations were designed by the state to protect tribal gaming entities at the expense of cardrooms.
“These regulations were never about protecting the public,” Kirkland continued. “They were designed to advance the interests of a handful of powerful gaming tribes at the expense of local communities, working families, and established cardroom businesses. The court rejected that effort and reaffirmed that the Bureau abused its discretion and cannot simply rewrite the law to achieve a political outcome.”
A spokesperson for the Bureau of Gambling Control told local media that the Bureau is reviewing its options in the wake of the decision, and vowed to “respond appropriately”.
Tribes vs. cardrooms is a long-running Californian saga
Kirkland’s mention of tribes references a longstanding debate in California over whether cardrooms violate tribal gaming exclusivity by offering table games that are backed by players or TPPs instead of the house.
California Gov.Gavin Newsom signed the Tribal Nations Access to Justice Act in 2024, which gave tribes the right to sue cardrooms in court without claiming damages. An association of California tribes subsequently sued in Sacramento Superior Court on Jan. 1, 2025, the very first day the new law allowed them to do so.
“By using well-funded TPPs to ensure liquidity for games and by refusing and failing to comply with legal requirements that the banking position must rotate away from the seat held by the TPPs, cardrooms have created gaming experiences that are indistinguishable from banked games in Nevada or New Jersey casinos,” the tribes wrote in the complaint, adding that such games violate their exclusive right to offer house-banked card games.
However, last October, a Sacramento court judge dismissed the lawsuit, writing that the new legislation is preempted by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), meaning she could not address the issue.
CNIGA Chair James Siva said at that time that the decision was “troubling”.
“It’s difficult to reconcile this ruling with the clear intent of the Legislature, and once again, a court has sidestepped the actual merits of the case — effectively denying tribes a fair opportunity to seek justice,” Siva told media.
