judge blocks – A San Francisco Superior Court judge temporarily halted Attorney General Rob Bonta’s rules aimed at banning blackjack-like table games at private cardrooms, throwing the fight back into court. The decision also preserves a political lifeline for California law
For now, the blackjack-like games stay on the tables.
Last month. outside the Sheraton Grand Sacramento Hotel in Sacramento. protesters gathered against regulations that would end blackjack-style play at cardrooms across California. The dispute landed in a courthouse moment soon after: a San Francisco Superior Court judge blocked Attorney General Rob Bonta’s effort to ban the table games. handing cardrooms a temporary win and buying time before the rules can take effect.
The regulations Bonta’s Bureau of Gambling Control is pursuing are tied to a familiar point of tension in California: taxes and revenue from table games that some local governments rely on. But the bigger fight is also political—one that former lawmakers and campaign finance records suggest has been kept deliberately. and profitably. in motion.
Mike Gatto, a former Democratic lawmaker from Los Angeles, said that’s exactly what the latest legal setback does. “It keeps the fight going; it keeps the two very powerful interests caring about what goes on at the Legislature. and therefore it keeps the campaign contributions moving as well. ” Gatto said.
Those contributions have been large. Twenty-seven of California’s casino-owning tribes have donated at least $15.8 million to current members of the state Legislature. according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database. Cardrooms and affiliated companies have given at least $2.8 million, according to the same database.
And Bonta himself is part of the incentive story. He is up for reelection this year, and Digital Democracy shows cardrooms have donated at least $244,000 to Bonta since 2012, compared with $531,000 from tribes.
Asked whether donations from the gambling factions affected the attorney general’s decision-making. Bonta’s campaign spokesperson. Jonathan Underland. said they did not. Underland wrote in a text message that “Contributions have never impacted the Attorney General’s decision-making process.” Underland also said Bonta stopped accepting campaign donations from the gambling factions before implementing the regulations.
The legal theory behind the dispute goes back to a narrow but lucrative question: who gets to be the “house” at table games.
Bonta’s office agreed with tribal arguments that cardrooms were violating rules by running “house-banked” table games—including blackjack. the most lucrative—despite tribes arguing they are protected by exclusive rights negotiated through the state. Underland pointed to ballot initiatives that gave tribes the right to negotiate compacts with the state to host Las Vegas-style casino games. “California voters made their decision on tribal gaming in 1998, and reaffirmed it two years later,” he said. “The constitution is a hard line, and Rob Bonta is committed to enforcing it.”.
Tribes say cardrooms get around the prohibition by contracting with third-party companies that serve as the “house” or “bank.” Those third-party employees typically sit at tables next to the cardroom dealers. collect players’ bets. and pay out winnings. The dealers must periodically offer the opportunity for players to act as the bank. and “almost every customer declines. ” according to the description of how the setup works. The card clubs collect fees from each game.
Bonta’s predecessors—Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra—began implementing regulations that aligned with the tribal view. but never finished them. Under the new effort. Darwin’s preliminary injunction found that Bonta’s office likely exceeded its authority by banning the cardrooms’ most popular table games.
That ruling is in effect for 45 days. The Attorney General’s Office will argue its case in court on June 30.
Kyle Kirkland. a Fresno cardroom owner and president of the California Gaming Association. applauded the temporary ruling and said the industry will prevail. “We are a legitimate industry, we have had decades of lawful operation,” Kirkland said. “We operate legally; we provide incredible support to our employees and our host communities.”.
For the tribes, the setback is a new reminder that the fight over gambling isn’t just about blackjack tables—it’s about legal standing and how quickly the money behind the industry can mobilize.
If the cardrooms win, it would be the tribes’ second legal defeat in less than a year.
In October, a Sacramento judge threw out a lawsuit the tribes had filed against cardrooms. That case tested a 2024 law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed that empowered tribes to sue their rivals. Before that law. tribes had been unable to sue private cardroom companies for unfair business practices because. as sovereign governments. they lacked legal standing in state courts.
Senate Bill 549 gave the tribes one shot to resolve their dispute in Sacramento County Superior Court. But the judge found federal law superseded the one Newsom signed.
The stakes extend far beyond gambling halls because some cities depend heavily on cardroom taxes. A tribal victory would jeopardize money for police, firefighters, and other local services.
San Jose officials say the city receives $30 million each year from cardrooms—enough to fund 150 police officers or 133 firefighters.
The SB 549 fight was one of the costliest political battles of the two-year legislative session that concluded in 2024. Gambling entities flooded legislative campaigns with donations. A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, many of them with large tribal casinos in their districts, pushed for the gambling measure. A smaller group of lawmakers with cardrooms in their districts opposed it.
During that two-year session, the opposing gambling interests donated at least $4.3 million to the Legislature, according to the Digital Democracy database.
The push for the bill followed years of failed attempts. The tribes pushed for SB 549 after spending millions on a 2022 sports betting initiative that would have let the tribes sue cardrooms.
Cardrooms responded with an equally aggressive political and lobbying strategy—spending heavily as what they described as an existential threat moved toward lawmaking.
In 2023, Hawaiian Gardens Casino spent $9.1 million on lobbying, the second most any company reported to state regulators. Only Chevron Corp. spent more that year.
After Newsom signed the law, the cardroom industry spent more than $3 million that fall in retaliation against four lawmakers who played key roles in passing the bill. Three of the targeted candidates lost their re-election, including the bill’s author, Democratic Sen. Josh Newman of Fullerton.
The courtroom fight now returns to a familiar crossroads. For cardrooms, the injunction is a temporary shield for blackjack-like games and the money tied to them. For tribes, the pause is just another step in a long legal war that has already produced costly political swings.
And for California lawmakers, the stakes remain painfully concrete: campaign contributions flowing from both sides, while the fight over who runs the “house” continues.
Digital Democracy engineer Alexis Ramirez contributed to this story.
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
California gambling cardrooms blackjack ban Rob Bonta tribal casinos Bureau of Gambling Control San Francisco Superior Court Richard Darwin campaign donations SB 549 Mike Gatto Josh Newman