California Tribes Could Sue Cardrooms Over Blackjack Games

With just two weeks left in California's legislative session, the Tribal Nations Access to Justice Act (SB549) is poised for a potential floor vote in the Assembly. The bill, which seeks to grant Indian tribes the legal standing to sue cardrooms over the way they offer banked card games like blackjack, has gathered momentum after a 14-0 vote in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. This recent advancement follows a similarly favorable vote in the Governmental Organization (GO) Committee, signaling that the legislation is on track for further debate and a possible floor vote.

 

Key Movements:

• SB549 would allow California tribes to sue cardrooms over offering banked card games like blackjack, challenging state gaming laws.
• Tribal Gaming Exclusivity: Tribes argue cardrooms violate their exclusive rights granted by the California Constitution and Proposition 1A.
• Opposition: Cardrooms, labor unions, and cities oppose the bill, fearing economic harm and legal challenges.

 

The Legal Battle for Tribal Gaming Exclusivity

The crux of SB549 revolves around longstanding tensions between California's Indian tribes and the state's cardrooms. At the heart of the dispute is the interpretation of gaming laws and tribal gaming exclusivity enshrined in the California Constitution. Indian tribes contend that cardrooms are violating state law by offering banked card games, which they argue infringe on tribal gaming rights established through Proposition 1A in 2000. This voter-approved measure amended the state constitution to permit Indian tribes, via compacts with the state, to operate slot machines and banked card games on tribal lands.

However, cardrooms have bypassed this exclusivity by contracting with third-party proposition player services (TPPPS) to offer banked games such as blackjack and baccarat. While the state regulates and registers these third-party services, the tribes believe this setup undermines their gaming rights.

Tribal Attorney General Tuari Bigknife of the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians, one of the leading advocates for SB549, is optimistic about the bill's passage. “There’s no reason to think it’s not going to get a vote,” Bigknife said, noting the bill's smooth progression through committee hearings. He emphasized that the bill's continued movement reflects growing support for tribes to defend their constitutional rights through legal action.

 

Why SB549 Matters to California's Tribes

For California's tribes, SB549 represents an opportunity to address years of frustration over the state's failure to enforce gaming exclusivity. Previous attempts to resolve the issue through litigation have stalled, largely due to the complexities of tribal sovereignty, which restricts both tribes and commercial entities from suing each other in many cases. Courts have dismissed earlier lawsuits filed by tribes without ruling on the merits, leaving the issue unresolved.

SB549 would grant tribes a three-month window to bring legal action against cardrooms and their third-party proposition player services, determining whether the offering of banked card games violates state law. The bill is designed to streamline the litigation process, consolidating all claims into a single lawsuit and preventing tribes from seeking monetary damages, penalties, or attorney's fees.

This legislative approach comes after the California Bureau of Gambling Control proposed new regulations to tighten restrictions on player-dealer rotations and prohibit blackjack-style games. However, there has been little progress in implementing those regulations, prompting tribes to seek relief through legislation instead.

 

Opposition Grows as Lobbyists Rally

While SB549 has gained traction, it faces staunch opposition from cardrooms, labor unions representing their workers, and the cities that host these establishments. The California Gaming Association (CGA), which represents cardrooms, has been vocal in its resistance to the bill. CGA President Kyle Kirkland argues that SB549 threatens the financial stability of many California cities, particularly those that rely heavily on cardroom-generated revenue during a period of economic uncertainty.

“SB 549 is unnecessary and puts at stake the budgets of dozens of primarily underserved cities across the state during a $30+ billion state budget shortfall and recession,” Kirkland said in January. He also criticized the bill for benefiting a few wealthy gaming tribes that do not pay state gaming or income taxes, positioning it as a power grab by tribes that already dominate the gaming market.

Cardrooms have also accused tribes of offering illegal games such as craps and roulette, further fueling the heated debate. The opposition's efforts to block SB549 have intensified in recent weeks, with lobbyists and unions working overtime to prevent the bill from reaching a floor vote.

“The cardrooms have gotten really noisy since this thing passed out of GO,” Bigknife said. “These folks who claim they’re too destitute to litigate a case are clearly spending millions of dollars right now. If they think what they’re doing is legal, they should save that money to go out and beat us.”

 

The Road Ahead for SB549

If SB549 passes the Assembly, it will move to the Senate for concurrence. Because the Senate previously approved a different version of the bill last year, the revised language could go directly to the Senate floor for a vote. The final decision on whether the bill proceeds lies with Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire.

As the legislative session draws to a close, the stakes are high for both tribes and cardrooms. SB549 represents the tribes' first real momentum in years to address what they view as illegal competition, but the powerful opposition coalition is determined to block the bill.

Despite the contentious nature of the debate, Bigknife remains confident that the fundamental question of protecting constitutionally granted rights will resonate with lawmakers. “At the end of the day, if everyone stepped away from who’s on the other side of the bill and asked the fundamental question of whether someone should be able to protect their constitutionally granted rights by California voters, not using the words tribes and cardrooms, people would say yes,” Bigknife said. “It’s anti-American to say otherwise.”

As the clock ticks down on California's legislative session, all eyes will be on the Assembly floor to see if SB549 makes it through to the finish line and reshapes the landscape of gaming law in the state.