The existing federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 provides for the negotiation and execution of tribal-state gaming compacts for the purpose of authorizing certain types of gaming on Indian lands within a state. The California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from authorizing casinos of the type operating in Nevada and New Jersey and authorizes the Governor to negotiate and conclude tribal-state gaming compacts, subject to ratification by the Legislature. Existing law expressly ratifies a number of tribal-state gaming compacts between the State of California and specified Indian tribes. Existing law, the Gambling Control Act, provides for the regulation, oversight, and licensure of gambling establishments by the California Gambling Control Commission. Existing law prohibits a list of specified gambling games or any banking or percentage game played with cards, dice, or any device, for money, checks, credit, or any representative of value, and provides that any person who offers for play or participates in these games is guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable as specified. Existing law authorizes gambling establishments to operate controlled games utilizing a player-dealer position, as defined, and to contract with a third party for the provision of proposition player services subject to specified conditions and regulatory requirements. Existing law generally specifies the persons or entities that may bring a civil action as prescribed for relief. Existing law authorizes a court to grant a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order at any time prior to judgment, if the verified complaint or affidavits provide sufficient grounds to do so and the opposing party has been given notice. This bill would authorize a California Indian tribe, under certain conditions, to bring an action solely against licensed California card clubs and third-party proposition player services providers to seek a declaration as to whether a controlled game operated by a licensed California card club and banked by a third-party proposition player services provider constitutes a banking card game that violates state law, including tribal gaming rights under the constitutional provisions described above, and to request injunctive relief. The bill would require that any review of such a challenge be conducted de novo. The bill would prohibit a claim for money damages, penalties, or attorney's fees and would require that actions be filed no later than April 1, 2025, as specified. The bill would clarify that it does not intend to authorize an action, or otherwise impose any liability, against the state and would prohibit a court from issuing a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order under certain circumstances. This bill would provide that its provisions are severable.