Tribal Casinos Challenge Court Decision Blocking Lawsuit Against California Cardrooms
Background of the Dispute
The ongoing conflict in California over who has the legal authority to operate certain casino-style games has flared up again. Tribal casinos are pushing back against a recent court decision that threatens to dismiss their lawsuit against non-tribal cardrooms.
Judicial Tentative Decision and Its Implications
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Lauri Damrell issued a tentative ruling aiming to dismiss the tribes’ case. The judge cited the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), which governs gambling on tribal lands, as taking precedence in this matter.
Tribes’ Perspective: Misinterpretation of the Law
The tribes argue that the ruling stems from a misinterpretation of IGRA. Their lawsuit targets cardrooms offering blackjack, baccarat, and other “banked” games off tribal lands—games the tribes claim exclusive rights to under California law.
Tribal attorney Adam Lauridsen emphasized that IGRA was designed to apply exclusively to tribal casinos, not to non-tribal gambling venues. He maintains that applying IGRA to dismiss their case disregards the state’s authority to regulate gambling operations off reservations and sets a problematic legal precedent.
The tribes base their lawsuit on California’s Senate Bill 549, also known as the Tribal Nations Access to Justice Act. This legislation permits tribes to sue cardrooms in state court to challenge whether certain banked games violate state gambling laws.
Banked games are defined as those where the house acts as the bank. Cardrooms attempt to circumvent this restriction by employing third-party proposition players as bankers, a practice the tribes contend is unlawful. Lauridsen pointed out that the legislature clearly granted tribes this legal avenue through SB 549 and that it should not be superseded by federal law.
Cardrooms’ Argument: Alleged Circumvention of IGRA
Attorney Ben Horwich, representing the cardrooms, argued that the tribes are attempting to bypass the regulatory structure Congress established through IGRA. This federal law facilitates resolving disputes via tribal-state compacts.
Horwich asserted, “They can’t have it both ways,” referencing the purpose of IGRA to provide a comprehensive framework for regulating tribal gaming. He suggested that the tribes’ lawsuit aims to suppress competition from cardrooms.
Judge’s Tentative Ruling and Next Steps
Judge Damrell’s current ruling favors the cardrooms, interpreting SB 549 as granting tribes a contractual remedy that ideally should have come from a compact negotiation. She noted that IGRA is highly detailed and limits state involvement outside of the compact process.
If Judge Damrell decides to revisit her position, she will need to issue a revised decision ahead of the scheduled hearing on October 10.
