_________________
_________________
_________________
_________________
By Brian Hews
Publisher | Follow X
October 10, 2025
A Sacramento County Superior Court judge has dismissed the Agua Caliente–led lawsuit against California cardrooms, dealing a major setback to efforts to curb banked-style games through state court. The court found that SB 549, the so-called Tribal Nations Access to Justice Act, is preempted by federal law that governs Indian gaming and therefore cannot be used to shut down cardroom games that state regulators have long allowed.
The case was one of several suits tribes filed after the Legislature created a short window for a single, statewide challenge in Sacramento. Tribal plaintiffs argued cardrooms were operating prohibited house-banked games; the clubs countered that they follow California’s rules by using third-party proposition players, keeping their offerings within state law. By dismissing the lawsuit on preemption grounds, the judge signaled that whatever policy goals lawmakers had in mind with SB 549, the federal framework leaves little room for this new state-law pathway.
For Southeast L.A. County, the impact is immediate. Cardrooms remain open in cities such as Commerce and Hawaiian Gardens, preserving a critical stream of general-fund revenue that supports police services, parks and recreation, senior programs, and other essentials. Finance officials in these communities had warned that an adverse ruling could have forced contingency cuts while litigation dragged on.
This is not the end of the broader fight. Tribal plaintiffs are expected to appeal, and parallel political efforts are likely to continue in Sacramento and during compact negotiations. If an appellate court revives the case or reshapes the legal landscape, clubs and host cities could again face uncertainty. For now, operations continue and the budget pressure many cities feared has eased—at least in the near term.
LCCN analysis: SB 549 was a textbook special-interest bill. Tribes and allied groups poured millions into Sacramento to jam it through, and shame on Gov. Gavin Newsom for signing a measure that invited statewide litigation only to collide with federal preemption—exactly as critics warned. The result: months of legal costs and uncertainty for working cities, with nothing to show for it.
Voters should also know who helped push it across the line. Local yes votes included Assemblymembers Lisa Calderon, Blanca Pacheco, Sharon Quirk-Silva, and Josh Lowenthal, and Senators Bob Archuleta, Lena Gonzalez, and Tom Umberg. They owe constituents an explanation for backing a bill that threatened city budgets and jobs in Commerce, Hawaiian Gardens and other cities in LA County with cardrooms. If lawmakers want clarity on gaming policy, they should do the work in compact negotiations and regulatory forums— not by handing out one-off favors that collapse in court.
At the heart of the dispute is the long-running tension between tribal exclusivity over casino-style gaming and the cardroom model authorized and policed by the state. The court concluded that federal law, not a new state cause of action, controls where those lines are drawn. In practical terms, future battles over the scope of cardroom games are more likely to be resolved through regulatory channels, compact talks, or federal forums than through the one-time state-court route the Legislature attempted last year.
Local officials and club operators welcomed the ruling even as they acknowledged another round is likely on appeal. For residents, the takeaway is simple: services funded by cardroom revenue remain intact while the legal and political battles continue off the gaming floor.
Adam Lauridsen with Keker, Van Nest & Peters, an attorney for the Tribes in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians et al. v. Parkwest Bicycle Casino et al. wrote in a statement to LCCN, ” We disagree with today’s ruling and will promptly appeal. The ruling itself is procedural only and does not deal with the key issue of the case: the illegality of cardroom’s banked games. Instead, the judge decided that federal law preempts the ability of California’s legislators to act in this area. The idea that this law, governing gaming by non-Tribes on non-Tribal land, is preempted by federal regulations governing gaming by Indian tribes on Indian land, is incorrect. The Tribes fundamentally disagree with this conclusion and will argue forcefully on appeal that California’s elected state representatives have the right to allow Tribes to ask the courts to rule on whether cardrooms are violating California law. We always expected this fight with the cardrooms to be a long one and will not be deterred from seeking justice and accountability.”
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.