Cardrooms in California face a legal hurdle due to opposition from Native American Tribes.
California Tribal Casinos Face Setback in Legal Battle Against Cardrooms
California's tribal casino operators have experienced a legal setback in their ongoing dispute with state-licensed cardrooms over the offering of certain casino games, such as blackjack and baccarat, in cardrooms. The dispute revolves around the exclusivity rights of tribal casinos to banked games under state law and tribal compacts, and cardrooms' use of third-party proposition player services (TPPPs) to act as the banker.
A key development in this ongoing saga was California's passage of the Tribal Nations Access to Justice Act (TNAJA) in November 2023, which allowed tribes to sue cardrooms directly for offering illegal banked games. However, a Sacramento County Superior Court judge, Lauri Damrell, issued a tentative ruling dismissing the tribal lawsuit filed in January 2025 challenging cardrooms' use of TPPPs and their game offerings.
Judge Damrell's tentative ruling, issued on August 11, 2025, determined that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), federal law governing Native American gaming, preempts the state law (TNAJA) facilitating these lawsuits and limits state involvement outside federally approved tribal-state compacts. The ruling reflects that disputes related to tribes' exclusive rights should be governed by the IGRA's federal framework rather than unilateral state laws.
Cardrooms continue to operate under regulation by the California Gambling Control Commission and maintain that their game models, where players bank hands or TPPPs act as bankers, do not constitute illegal banked games under applicable law. The tribes contend that TPPPs are a legal workaround circumventing their exclusive rights to banked games, but the court has not yet definitively ruled on that substantive claim due to the federal preemption issue.
The next hearing in the case is set for October 10, and Judge Damrell indicated she may revise her opinion before then. The TNAJA opened a window for the tribes to sue for limited declaratory relief in the state court, but the decision found that the TNAJA could intrude on the federal IGRA by creating remedies for tribes outside of the compact process.
The object of the tribes' lawsuit is the "California games," versions of popular casino table games like blackjack and pai gow poker that aim to bypass the ban on house-banked games outside tribal casinos by taking a rake from each hand. The rules of many "California games" don't require actual rotation of the bank; one player can bank the game uninterrupted when no other player accepts an offer to bank, "just as in Nevada and New Jersey-style banked games."
California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the TNAJA last year, providing a legal avenue for the tribes to challenge cardrooms' operations. However, the tentative ruling suggests that allowing such claims in state court could undermine the balance Congress established when it enacted the IGRA. The final ruling in this case will have significant implications for the future of gaming in California and the relationship between tribal casinos and state-licensed cardrooms.
| Aspect | Status & Implications | |--------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Legal Dispute | Tribes sued cardrooms alleging illegal offering of banked games (using third-party bankers) | | Tribal Nations Access to Justice Act (TNAJA) | California state law (Nov 2023) enabling tribes to sue cardrooms directly | | Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) | Federal law governing tribal gaming compacts; federal preemption limits how state law can regulate Native gaming | | 2025 Court Ruling | Tentative dismissal of tribe lawsuit; Judge Damrell found TNAJA preempted by IGRA, delaying tribal claims | | Current Status | Legal dispute ongoing; ruling may be reconsidered at October 2025 hearing; tribes face barriers suing under state law | | Implications | Federal IGRA framework remains central; tribes' enforcement efforts against cardrooms face limits without tribal-state compacts |
- Although the Tribal Nations Access to Justice Act (TNAJA) in California provided a new avenue for tribal nations to challenge state-licensed cardrooms, a tentative ruling dismissed the lawsuit filed in January 2025, determining that the act was preempted by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).
- The ongoing legal battle between California tribal casinos and cardrooms over offering certain casino games, such as blackjack and baccarat, in cardrooms, hinges on the exclusive rights of tribal casinos to banked games under state law and tribal compacts, and cardrooms' use of third-party proposition player services (TPPPs) to act as the banker.
- In the ongoing dispute, the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) preempts the California's Tribal Nations Access to Justice Act (TNAJA), according to a Sacramento County Superior Court judge, Lauri Damrell, and therefore limits state involvement outside federally approved tribal-state compacts, affecting the future of gaming in California and the relationship between tribal casinos and state-licensed cardrooms.
