Share 
A San Francisco Superior Court judge recently issued a preliminary injunction against California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s regulations targeting cardrooms.
The ruling temporarily prevents state regulators from enforcing the regulations for 45 days while litigation proceeds, handing cardrooms an early victory in their ongoing dispute with tribal casinos. But there may be another group benefiting from the prolonged conflict: politicians.
A gambling war with political winners
“It keeps the fight going; it keeps the two very powerful interests caring about what goes on at the Legislature, and therefore it keeps the campaign contributions moving as well,” said Mike Gatto, a former Democratic lawmaker from Los Angeles.
For decades, tribal casinos have sought to curb cardroom operations that they view as unlawful competition. Cardrooms, meanwhile, have relied on lobbying and legal challenges to defend their business model. As the dispute has intensified, both industries have directed millions of dollars in campaign contributions to California lawmakers.
According to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database, 27 casino-owning tribes have contributed at least $15.8 million to current members of the California Legislature. The database also shows that 26 cardrooms and affiliated companies have contributed at least $2.8 million.
The long-running fight between tribal casinos and cardrooms
Cardrooms are privately owned gambling establishments that offer poker and other card games. California’s Constitution grants tribes exclusive rights to operate banked card games, creating a longstanding dispute over whether certain games offered by cardrooms violate that exclusivity.
Cardrooms argue that their games comply with state law because the establishments do not directly participate in the outcome of the games. Instead, cardrooms collect fees from players and use a rotating player-dealer system, often involving third-party proposition player services that assume the banking role.
Tribal governments contend that these arrangements effectively allow cardrooms to offer games that should be reserved exclusively for tribal casinos.
The dispute escalated after Bonta’s office finalized regulations targeting blackjack-style games and the rotating player-dealer system. The attorney general’s office argues the regulations are necessary to enforce existing state law and constitutional protections for tribal gaming.
However, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Darwin issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the regulations. In his ruling, Darwin concluded that cardrooms were likely to succeed on some of their claims that state regulators exceeded their authority when adopting the rules. The injunction remains in effect while the case moves forward.
Kyle Kirkland, president of the California Gaming Association and a Fresno cardroom owner, welcomed the ruling.
“We are a legitimate industry, we have had decades of lawful operation,” Kirkland said. “We operate legally; we provide incredible support to our employees and our host communities.”
The injunction marks the latest chapter in a legal battle that has repeatedly moved between the courts, the Legislature and state regulators.
In October 2025, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lauri Damrell dismissed a lawsuit filed by several tribes against cardrooms under Senate Bill 549. The law, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2024, gave tribes a one-time opportunity to sue cardrooms in state court over disputed gambling practices. Damrell ruled that federal law preempted the statute, preventing the case from moving forward.
Because the court did not rule on whether the cardroom games themselves are legal, the underlying dispute remains unresolved.
Politicians contributions rise as the dispute continues
The battle over Senate Bill 549 became one of the Legislature’s most expensive political fights. According to Digital Democracy data cited by CalMatters, tribal and cardroom interests contributed at least $4.3 million to lawmakers during the 2023-24 session.
The dispute has also highlighted campaign donations to Bonta. Records show tribes have contributed about $531,000 to the attorney general since 2012, compared with roughly $244,000 from cardroom interests. Bonta’s campaign says those contributions did not influence his decisions and notes that he stopped accepting donations from both sides before advancing the regulations.
Local governments face financial risks
Many California cities rely on cardroom tax revenue to help fund public services. San Jose alone receives approximately $30 million annually from cardroom-related revenue.
With local budgets, gaming revenue and regulatory authority all on the line, the outcome of the case could have far-reaching consequences for cities, tribes and cardroom operators alike.
