In a ruling Tuesday, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Darwin said the Attorney General Office’s Bureau of Gambling Control gave itself too much authority when it issued a statewide ban on blackjack and player dealer games.

Following a preliminary injunction against the ban, Darwin called it a “strange structure” to have both the bureau and the separate California Gambling Control Commission with the same authority to issue categorical bans.

Kyle Kirkland, president of the California Gaming Association and president of Club One Casino in Fresno, called it a “good day for card rooms and California communities.”

“For more than a year, we have said this case is about far more than gaming — it is about whether the attorney general and his regulators can bypass the Legislature and unilaterally rewrite decades of established law,” Kirkland said. “Today, the court delivered a clear answer: they cannot.”

The attorney general’s office did not respond to a request for comment before publication of this article.

An Appeal of Judge’s Decision Is Likely

Kirkland said given the tax contributions that cardrooms make to cities, the regulations would have been “devastating.”

“These regulations were never about protecting the public,” Kirkland said. “They were designed to advance the interests of a handful of powerful gaming tribes at the expense of local communities, working families, and established cardroom businesses.”

Attorney General Rob Bonta, through the bureau, issued the ban on blackjack in February, saying it violated a 19th Century law against a game called “21.”

Earlier this year, the bureau asserted its power saying that because it has the ability to approve games, it therefore has the authority to prohibit games.

While the bureau’s attorneys argued that the agency has been issuing regulations since 1999, Darwin interrupted, saying “not like this.”

The strongest evidence for the separation of powers comes in state law that limits what powers the commission has in its ability to ban games, said attorney Jeremy Kreisberg, representing the gaming association. The Legislature did not outline limits on the bureau’s power.

“Why would the Legislature have gone to the pains of putting these specific limits on the commission … when it comes to categorical game prohibitions, but no limits whatsoever on the bureau,” Kreisberg said.

Darwin anticipated an appeal in his ruling. Both sides will meet next week to work out technical details as the preliminary injunction will expire Sunday.

Politico in October 2025 reported that tribal communities contributed at least $101,500 to Attorney General Rob Bonta from 2023 to summer 2024.

Blackjack Ban Affects More Than Just Cardrooms

Several California cities joined the association in opposition to the ban, largely because of significant lost revenue and employment a ban would cause.

The Attorney General’s own analysis from earlier in the year found that a ban would eliminate more than 50% of cardroom revenues statewide, with about 25% of revenue being diverted to Indian gaming casinos.

That lost cardroom revenue would translate to lost tax revenue to cities.

In Fresno, Club One pays about $1 million annually to the city’s general fund. Across the state, a blackjack ban on the 86 licensed cardrooms would cost the state about $396 million annually.