San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Darwin threw out gambling regulations that Attorney General Rob Bonta's Bureau of Gambling Control had adopted to restrict popular table games at California cardrooms.
He ruled that the Bureau exceeded its legal authority when it tried to impose the restrictions on a statewide basis, siding with the California Gaming Association in a fight that has stretched more than a year.
Key Takeaways
- A San Francisco judge voided statewide cardroom restrictions, finding the Bureau of Gambling Control exceeded its legal authority.
- The blocked rules targeted blackjack-style games and third-party proposition players, which threatened closures, jobs, and municipal tax revenue.
- Judge Richard Darwin said major gambling policy changes require legislative action, not unilateral statewide agency regulations.
The Bureau argued the rules were needed to better align cardroom operations with California gambling law, while tribal casinos have long contended that some cardroom games unlawfully resemble casino games reserved for tribes.
The regulations targeted blackjack-style games and the third-party proposition players that cardrooms rely on to run them and would have forced many establishments to sharply cut back or shut down entirely. Industry groups warned that the changes threatened thousands of jobs and a large share of local tax revenue that cities use to fund police, fire, and other services.
Kyle Kirkland, president of the California Gaming Association, called the decision a win for communities across the state that depend on cardroom tax dollars.
“The court’s ruling is a lifeline for communities across California,” Kirkland said in a statement. “If these regulations had been allowed to stand, the consequences would have been devastating for working families, local businesses, and the cities that rely on card room revenues to fund police, parks, libraries, youth programs, and other essential services.”
The judge found that decisions of this magnitude belong with the state Legislature rather than with an administrative agency acting on its own. California's licensed cardrooms generate hundreds of millions of dollars each year for local governments and support a large workforce statewide.
Supporters of the ruling said the Bureau ignored those consequences while pushing the regulations through.
Enjoying Covers content? Add us as a preferred source on your Google account
Industry pushback
In February of this year, Bonta and the Bureau of Gambling Control received the go-ahead from the Office of Administrative Law to roll out new regulations that would have effectively restricted player-dealer games offered in cardrooms.
The move drew pushback from within the industry, including Heather Guerena, chief counsel for Stones Gambling Hall in Citrus Heights, said limiting blackjack-style games would cut nearly 40% of revenue.
In May, Kirkland, writing an op-ed for The Sacramento Bee, explained the regulations would only be a bad thing for the industry, claiming they would threaten the jobs of nearly 30,000 workers and deprive certain cities that use tax revenue from cardrooms to fund certain services.
He explained the state’s tribal casinos generate $12 billion in annual revenue and pay no state or local gaming taxes, whereas cardrooms generate $1.4 billion in annual gaming revenue and are subject to state taxes. He argued the regulations would cause a monopoly in the market and bring more revenue to already wealthy tribes.
Following Judge Darwin’s decision, Kirkland said major gambling policy decisions should be made through the legislature rather than administrative bodies, which, he claims, are “influenced by powerful special interests.”
