In their protracted conflict with the state's cardrooms, California's tribal casino operators have taken a court setback. In a tentative ruling last Thursday, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Lauri Damrell determined that California's recently passed Tribal Nations Access to Justice Act (TNAJA) is superseded by the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).
The tribes may not be able to move on with a lawsuit alleging that the cardroom industry offers illegal gaming in violation of the California Penal Code and the state constitution, which is bad news.
Sue's window
The tribes have long argued that certain cardroom games violate tribal exclusivity on house-banked casino games and are illegal, but they have not had the legal means to contest these claims. Because tribes are sovereign nations, state courts typically have no authority over them.
Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, signed the TNAJA last year. This made it possible for the tribes to file a lawsuit in state court for limited declaratory relief. They were able to seek a ruling on the legality of the contentious games under the new law, but they were not permitted to seek monetary damages.
It looks like that window is going to close. Damrell's preliminary decision highlights how the TNAJA's creation of remedies for tribes outside of the compact process seems to violate the federal framework outlined in the IGRA. She pointed out that the balance Congress created when it passed the IGRA might be compromised if similar claims were permitted in state court.
On Friday, tribal lawyers contended that the issue has little to do with the IGRA because it concerns off-reservation games. They claim that the TNAJA was created expressly to grant tribes the right to file lawsuits against California cardrooms for allegedly breaking state gaming regulations.
Don't Put Your Trust in It
The "California games" are the target of the tribes' wrath. By extracting a rake from each hand, these variations of well-known casino table games like blackjack and pai gow poker seek to circumvent the prohibition on house-banked games outside of tribal casinos. Like in a game of poker, they also let participants to play with a rotating dealer.
In their case, the tribes contend that many of these games' rules only provide for the giving of the bank rather than its actual rotation. According to the lawsuit, this means that when no other player accepts an offer to bank, one player can bank the game without interruption, "just as in Nevada and New Jersey-style banked games."
Since many customers would rather not take on that duty themselves, cardrooms frequently hire state-licensed businesses to "shill" the dealer's role. Tribal casinos argue that these third-party proposition player services, or TPPPs, serve as the game's bank in an efficient manner, particularly when cardrooms refuse or fail to distribute the banking responsibility among players in accordance with state regulations.
Although it is a defeat for tribes, the tentative decision is not final. Judge Damrell said she might change her mind prior to the October 10 hearing.
