California Cardrooms Win Preliminary Injunction Against Bonta’s Blackjack Restrictions as Tribal Sovereignty Tensions Persist

A San Francisco Superior Court judge has blocked Attorney General Rob Bonta’s proposed restrictions on California cardrooms, granting a preliminary injunction that allows operations to continue while litigation proceeds. The ruling addresses measures that would have effectively banned blackjack and imposed strict player-dealer rotation rules. As someone who has spent decades observing the evolution of gaming regulation, I see this as another chapter in the long-running tension between cardrooms, tribes, and state authority.

The California Gaming Association challenged the legality of Bonta’s rules, which targeted two core elements of cardroom play. San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Darwin ruled that Bonta’s office likely exceeded its authority by adopting regulations that effectively act as a statewide ban on some of cardrooms’ most popular table games. The court also found clear and convincing evidence that the Bureau’s enforcement of the regulations would irreparably injure cardrooms and their communities.

Immediate Relief for Cardrooms and Local Economies

The preliminary injunction prevents immediate enforcement, preserving jobs and revenue streams that communities rely on. Kyle Kirkland, President of the California Gaming Association, stated that the court’s ruling is an important step towards preventing severe and unnecessary harm to cities, workers, and small businesses that depend on the cardroom industry.

Kirkland owns and operates the Club One Casino in Fresno. There, 60% of revenue is generated by player-dealer games and 20% by blackjack. The outright ban on blackjack cuts 20% of the establishment’s business and leaves 40% at risk with new player-deal rotation rules.

“These are easily the most disruptive set of regulations that I have seen in my tenure in the cardroom industry, which is two decades now,” Kirkland told the Sacramento Bee. “I’m not sure most cardrooms would survive because this is such a drastic change.”

Cardroom workers protested outside a Sacramento hotel where Bonta was scheduled to speak. Their signs carried a clear message: “No cardrooms, no jobs”.

The Specifics of Bonta’s Proposed Restrictions

Bonta’s proposal centered on player-dealer rotation and blackjack-style games. Under the rules, only players seated at the table—not third-party proposition player service employees—could act as the dealer. Players would have to rotate every 20 minutes.

The blackjack-style provisions would prohibit using “21” as a target number, remove “busting,” eliminate blackjack terminology, and alter tie outcomes. These changes would render blackjack-style games commercially unviable, effectively removing some of the industry’s most popular offerings.

This is not abstract regulatory tweaking. It targets the economic heart of cardroom operations in a state where tribal exclusivity claims have long shaped the gaming landscape.

Tribal Pushback and the Sovereignty Dimension

Tribal groups have fought cardroom expansion into games they view as their exclusive domain. James Siva, Chairman of the California Nations Indian Gaming Association, praised the regulations as an important step to combat unscrupulous and illegal gaming in California.

Tribes previously sued cardrooms without success. Last year a Sacramento judge ruled against them, with Judge Lauri A. Damrell stating that the tribes’ suit was preempted by the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and that severance cannot resolve IGRA preemption.

Bonta has consistently supported tribal exclusivity. He declared daily fantasy sports illegal and has moved against cardrooms. The attorney general’s office has also signaled interest in prediction markets.

“We are very protective of our sovereignty,” Bonta told Business Insider last month. He indicated that he firmly disagrees with the CFTC’s stance that federal laws preempt states from regulating prediction markets.

“The fact that we haven’t sued, I think you should not read too much into it,” he added.

Tribal groups are large contributors to Bonta’s political campaigns.

Risks, Counterarguments, and the Path Forward

The ruling offers only temporary relief. The next hearing in the case is set for June 30.

One risk is continued escalation of the tribal-cardroom conflict. Tribes see cardroom games as encroachment on sovereign gaming rights protected under IGRA. Cardrooms counter that their operations serve distinct markets and generate broad economic benefits beyond tribal casinos.

Bonta’s prediction-market comments add another layer. His disagreement with CFTC preemption mirrors the arguments used against cardrooms. This suggests the state may pursue similar legal theories in emerging verticals where regulatory ambiguity persists.

From my perspective after decades in gaming law and advisory work, these fights highlight a structural challenge. When sovereignty, state authority, and commercial innovation collide, litigation often becomes the default path. Yet prolonged uncertainty harms operators, workers, and communities alike.

The preliminary injunction buys time. It prevents immediate disruption while the court weighs the full merits. Cardrooms can maintain current operations, but they must prepare for the possibility that restrictions could return.

The Bottom Line

This decision underscores the fragile balance in California gaming between cardroom viability and tribal sovereignty claims. Bonta’s dual focus on cardroom rules and potential prediction-market action reveals a consistent regulatory philosophy rooted in state and tribal protections. Operators and stakeholders should watch the June 30 hearing closely, as the outcome could reshape not only table games but also how preemption fights unfold in newer verticals. The convergence of these tensions marks an inflection point where clear, balanced frameworks would serve the industry better than repeated courtroom battles.