Tribal casinos in California are contesting a tentative ruling by Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Lauri Damrell, which dismissed their legal challenge against non-tribal cardrooms that offer banked games such as blackjack and baccarat. The decision, based on the judge’s interpretation of the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), has ignited strong opposition from tribal representatives who argue that the ruling misconstrues the scope of the federal law.
The tribes filed their lawsuit under Senate Bill 549, also known as the Tribal Nations Access to Justice Act, which permits California tribes to bring claims in Superior Court against cardrooms to determine the legality of banked games. These games involve a central bank—traditionally the “house”—but cardrooms employ third-party proposition players to fulfill that role, a practice tribal casinos argue violates state law and undermines their exclusive gaming rights.
Tribes Argue State Law Should Apply
Attorney Adam Lauridsen, representing the tribal casinos, asserted that Judge Damrell’s tentative dismissal relies too heavily on federal law that governs gaming on tribal lands, not off-reservation activity such as that in cardrooms.
Lauridsen emphasized that Senate Bill 549 acknowledges the authority of tribes to pursue judicial remedies under state law, specifically in cases involving non-tribal gaming operations. According to Lauridsen, interpreting IGRA as blocking such suits effectively denies tribes any route to challenge what they see as unlawful gaming practices off tribal lands.
“We don’t think any of this should be preempted because it’s non-tribal gaming off Indian land,” he said.
He further argued that simply granting tribes standing through SB 549 should not activate IGRA’s preemption clause, which governs tribal-state compacts, not civil complaints in state courts.
Cardrooms Say Lawsuit Sidesteps Established Gaming Framework
Representing the cardrooms, attorney Ben Horwich pushed back against the tribes’ interpretation, arguing that the case seeks to override the compacting process set forth by IGRA—a process not available to cardrooms due to tribal sovereignty protections.
“They can’t have it both ways,” Horwich said. “That is why [the regulatory act] exists.”
Horwich framed the lawsuit as an attempt by tribal casinos to eliminate commercial competition through the courts, bypassing the avenues provided by federal compact negotiations. He warned that Senate Bill 549 undermines the compacting system by introducing an alternative, court-driven remedy not included in prior compacts negotiated with the state.
Judge to Reconsider Before Final Ruling in October
In her tentative ruling, Judge Damrell found that the lawsuits authorized by SB 549 likely fall within IGRA’s preemptive scope, asserting that states have no role in regulating tribal gaming unless explicitly provided in a compact.
“As the cardroom defendants point out, SB 549 provides tribes with a breach of contract remedy that could have been negotiated in the tribal-state compacting process, but was not,” Damrell wrote.
She added that tribal plaintiffs largely ignored the remedies available under that process. However, the judge noted that if she decides to revise her position, a final ruling will be issued before the next hearing scheduled for October 10.
Source:
“Tribal casinos lose round in fight over cardroom banked games”, courthousenews.com, Aug 8, 2025
The post California Tribes Contest Ruling in Cardroom Gaming Dispute first appeared on RealMoneyAction.com.