California Superior Court Judge Richard Darwin has struck down state regulations aimed at the cardroom industry, ruling that the Bureau of Gambling Control exceeded its authority by adopting rules that would have restricted table games licensed cardrooms have offered for decades.
The Bureau, a division of the California Department of Justice, lacked authority to impose the statewide restrictions through the challenged regulations, according to the California Gaming Association.
The ruling follows months of legal battles over regulations finalized in February that were scheduled to take effect in April. Earlier this year, Judge Darwin temporarily blocked enforcement while the lawsuit moved forward, finding the association was likely to succeed and that implementation could cause significant economic harm.
The disputed rules targeted blackjack-style games and tightened requirements governing player-banked tables and third-party proposition player providers.
Tribal gaming organizations had supported the changes, arguing they clarified existing law and protected tribes' exclusive rights to operate house-banked casino games under California law.
Gaming law expert I. Nelson Rose previously questioned whether the Bureau, rather than the California Gambling Control Commission, had authority to make sweeping changes to approved games.
The regulations would have outlawed or significantly limited popular table games, cutting industry revenue roughly in half, threatening thousands of jobs, and reducing tax revenue that many cities use to fund police, parks, libraries, youth programs, and other public services.
The California Gaming Association said the Court's ruling is a lifeline for communities across California, stating that the consequences of the regulations would have been devastating for working families, local businesses, and the cities that rely on cardroom revenues to fund essential services.
The association added that the court's decision reinforces that major California gaming policy must be determined by the Legislature rather than through administrative action, and that the Bureau abused its discretion and cannot simply rewrite the law to achieve a political outcome.
The association also stated that employees, labor groups, local governments, and community stakeholders repeatedly warned regulators that the proposed rules would inflict severe economic damage, but those concerns were ignored.
