Court blocks California rules banning blackjack

A San Francisco Superior Court judge confirmed that the California Bureau of Gaming Control cannot enforce two regulations that would have prohibited traditional blackjack and restricted third‑party proposition player services at commercial cardrooms. Judge Richard Darwin upheld a preliminary injunction issued less than six weeks earlier.

The California Gaming Association and several cardrooms filed the lawsuit against Attorney General Rob Bonta and other state officials after the Bureau adopted the two rules nearly five months ago. One rule would have barred traditional blackjack at cardroom tables. The other would have limited licensed third‑party operators who act as player‑bankers in those games.

The CGA argued the regulations would cut cardroom revenues by roughly half and would reduce local tax revenue in cities that rely on cardrooms to fund municipal services. Kyle Kirkland, president of the California Gaming Association, wrote in a statement: “It is about whether the attorney general and his regulators can bypass the legislature and unilaterally rewrite decades of established law. Today, the court delivered a clear answer: they cannot.”

A spokesperson for the attorney general’s office said state officials were disappointed and would review next steps. Under California court rules, most appeals must be filed within 60 days after entry of judgment. Judge Darwin told the court he expects the ruling to be appealed.

Tribal gaming nations supported the state’s regulatory effort and have long sought limits on commercial cardroom table games, arguing that voters granted tribes exclusive rights to operate certain table games on sovereign land. After a 2024 state law gave tribes the right to sue, tribal attempts to sue cardrooms were dismissed by a Sacramento judge last October, which found federal law preempted that state cause of action. Voters approved measures in the late 1990s and 2000 that allowed tribes to operate casinos on sovereign land.

While the injunction remains in place, cardrooms may continue offering traditional blackjack and using third‑party proposition player services. The broader legal and regulatory dispute between commercial cardrooms, state officials and tribal nations is likely to proceed through appeals and further litigation.