Home General News California Tribal Casinos Appealing Cardroom Ruling

California Tribal Casinos Appealing Cardroom Ruling

California Tribal Casinos Appealing Cardroom Ruling
Tribes in California are battling against the state ruling allowing for house-banked card games in casinos.

As reported recently, three major tribal casinos in California are determined to continue their latest legal battle against the state’s new cardroom ruling. The ruling allows for private, gambling facilities, which includes casinos operating within the state’s borders to offer house-banked card games.

Several days ago, the United States District Court for California decided to completely dismiss a lawsuit which was filled by three California tribal casinos including the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians, the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, and Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation.

The three casinos in their lawsuit accused the state of violating their gaming compacts. More specifically, the three tribal casinos argued that the state of California in their latest cardroom ruling guidelines violates their exclusivity provision as the latest guidelines permit commercial casinos and cardrooms to provide their customers so-called house-banked card games in that customers compete against the casino such as in blackjack rather than competing against each other such in poker.

House Roles Assigned to Every Player

Following the latest cardroom ruling guidelines, several commercial cardrooms operating within the state’s borders actually came up with a unique variation which is known as player-banked card games in which the role of the house is assigned to every participating player seated at the same table on a certain rotating basis. This in practice means that the role of the house is performed by a proposition, third-party players who are generally employed by several private companies only for this purpose, to act as dealers.

In their lawsuit, the three tribal casinos stated that this rotation rule is actually oftentimes skirted by commercial gambling facilities and casinos by these propositions, third-party players who offer the dealer role to every player seated at the table who generally rotate. However, players usually decline this offer and decide to go with their gaming sessions as usual.

Several days before, the official Judge on the case, John Menendez decided to completely dismiss this lawsuit stating that the three tribal casinos’ gaming compacts which have been negotiated four years ago do not integrate the matching clauses of exclusivity as other gaming compacts which have been inked by the state with other tribal gaming facilities in 1999. For this reason, the judge decided that the three tribes filling the lawsuit had no exclusivity rights beyond those rights that are already stated in the state’s constitution.

The Tribes Continuing Their Legal Battles

Following this news, the three tribes issued an official statement in which they agree that the cardroom ruling was just a procedural finding by the state’s court which lacks the power when it comes to requiring the state to finally enforce the compacts law under their compacts. Moreover, in their official statement, the three tribes also stated that they believe that the state’s court’s point was actually that the gaming compacts were not and cannot be the major vehicle under that the tribes themselves can force the state’s officials to enforce new cardroom laws.

Furthermore, the tribes also stated that they believe that the state’s court was completely incorrect when it concluded that the tribal gaming compacts do not provide them a basis required to compel the state’s officials to enforce new gaming laws. All in all, the tribes will continue their legal battles by appealing the latest cardroom ruling. It should be noted that this is not the first time California’s cardroom gaming facilities face lawsuits of this kind. In fact, several other tribal operators within the state filed their lawsuits previously stating that California’s cardroom facilities often time illegally benefit from sports betting, money laundering, and other criminal activities.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments