Sacramento Judge Dismisses Tribal Lawsuit Against State-Licensed Cardrooms
Court says federal law preempts California measure
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A Sacramento Superior Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by several California tribes against dozens of state-licensed cardrooms, ruling that federal law leaves no room for the claims authorized by a state statute.
State law blocked by federal gaming act
The case centered on Senate Bill 549, passed in 2024, which gave tribes with gaming compacts the ability to sue cardrooms and third-party proposition player services over whether certain games—such as blackjack and baccarat variants—violated tribal exclusivity rights.
The tribes, including the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, argued that cardrooms were offering illegal “house-banked” games. Under state law, tribes have held exclusive rights to Class III, or banked, gaming since 2000.
Cardrooms challenged SB 549 itself, saying the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), a federal law passed in 1988, governs all disputes involving tribal gaming. Their attorneys argued that California could not create a separate legal avenue for tribes that bypassed IGRA’s framework.
The court agreed, sustaining the cardrooms’ demurrer and ruling that SB 549 was preempted by federal law. Because IGRA requires tribal gaming rights to be negotiated in federally approved compacts, the judge found the state statute impermissibly created a parallel remedy.
The dismissal was issued without leave to amend, preventing the tribes from refiling their case in state court.
Long-running conflict over cardroom games
The ruling represents a setback for tribes that have fought for years to stop cardrooms from offering games they contend cross into banked play.
In one complaint, the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians argued that third-party providers operated as the bank in blackjack-style games, creating arrangements “consistent with the type of banked games offered in Nevada and New Jersey casinos.” Tribes also pointed to contracts between cardrooms and third-party providers, which they said gave cardrooms an unlawful interest in game revenues.
Cardrooms countered that the legislature’s attempt to authorize such lawsuits clashed with existing state law, including Proposition 64, which requires plaintiffs to show direct financial harm. In a filing from Artichoke Joe’s cardroom, attorneys argued that SB 549 circumvented voter-approved restrictions and was therefore invalid.
Legislative and regulatory backdrop
SB 549, also known as the Tribal Nations Access to Justice Act, was unusual because it specifically created legal standing for tribes to sue. Tribes had previously been blocked from pursuing similar cases, including a 2021 lawsuit dismissed for lack of standing.
Meanwhile, state regulators have been considering their own changes to cardroom rules. The Bureau of Gambling Control has proposed stricter limits on blackjack-style games, including new point totals and rotation requirements for player-dealer positions. Public hearings drew strong support from cardrooms, which warned the rules could cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and threaten jobs in cities that rely heavily on cardroom tax revenues.
What comes next
The dismissal leaves tribes with limited options. They could appeal the ruling, though IGRA has repeatedly been found to preempt state-level efforts. Another route may be federal court, where tribes might try to frame the issue as a breach of tribal-state compacts.
For now, the Sacramento court’s ruling ends California’s experiment with SB 549 and leaves unresolved the broader fight over whether cardrooms’ use of third-party providers amounts to illegal house-banked play.