Court blocks California ban on blackjack, appeal likely

A San Francisco Superior Court judge this week barred the California Bureau of Gaming Control from enforcing two regulations that would have banned traditional blackjack and limited third‑party proposition player services at commercial cardrooms.

The California Gaming Association, joined by several cardrooms and related businesses, filed the lawsuit against Attorney General Rob Bonta and other state officials after the rules were adopted nearly five months ago. The plaintiffs argued the regulations would cut cardroom revenues by roughly half and reduce tax receipts for cities that host cardrooms.

Judge Richard Darwin upheld a preliminary injunction he issued less than six weeks earlier and kept the rules from taking effect. During the hearing, Darwin told the court, ‘We all expect this to go up,’ indicating he expects the state to appeal. Under state court rules, most appeals must be filed within 60 days of entry of judgment.

The contested regulations would have prohibited classic blackjack and placed limits on licensed firms that supply professional proposition players who act as bankers at cardroom tables.

The attorney general’s office described the ruling as ‘disappointing’ and will review options for moving forward. The state has maintained that the Bureau of Gaming Control acted within its authority to protect gaming integrity and to respond to concerns raised by tribal gaming nations.

Kyle Kirkland, president of the California Gaming Association, framed the case as a legal and fiscal issue for cities. He argued regulators should not bypass the legislature and rewrite decades of established law, and warned the rules would have harmed municipal budgets that rely on cardroom tax revenue.

Tribal gaming nations have long sought stricter limits on commercial cardrooms, saying voter-approved measures in 1998 and 2000 gave tribes exclusive rights to operate certain table games on sovereign land. Tribes pursued a 2024 state law that allowed them to sue cardrooms, but a Sacramento judge dismissed that case last October on the grounds that federal law preempted the state statute.

A 2022 ballot measure known as Proposition 26, which included provisions allowing private parties to ask the attorney general to act against suspected illegal gaming, failed at the polls. Political and legal efforts around ballot measures and legislation have shaped the regulatory environment for cardrooms.

With the San Francisco ruling in place, the underlying lawsuit and the broader dispute between cardrooms, the state and tribal nations are set to continue if the state files an appeal and seeks review by a higher court.