Judge Upholds Federal Authority to Reconsider Vallejo Casino, but Tribe’s Due-Process Rights Violated

A Washington D.C. federal judge has upheld the US Department of the Interior’s (DOI) ability to reevaluate the gaming eligibility of a proposed casino by the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians in Vallejo, California. However, he also ruled that the agency violated the tribe’s constitutional due process rights when it decided to reconsider the casino.

The tribe has been trying to build a casino for years. In January, the DOI granted its request to take the land into trust on its behalf and declared it exempt from federal gaming prohibitions. However, about 11 weeks later, the agency told the tribe that it was “temporarily rescinding and reconsidering the parcel’s gaming eligibility.”

Scotts Valley challenged both the agency’s rescission and reconsideration. It asserted that each violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Agency’s Authority Affirmed—Within Boundaries

US District Judge Trevor N. McFadden found that DOI acted within its administrative authority when it rescinded the earlier gaming determination. He wrote that “administrative agencies … possess at least some inherent authority to revisit their prior decisions.”

The rescission, the court held, came “within ‘weeks, not years’ of the January 10 determination—ten weeks and six days, to be exact.” Therefore, the court found that to be “timely” and did not exceed the agency’s power.

At the same time, the judge rejected the tribe’s claim that the agency’s move was influenced by political pressure from rival tribes. He did find that other tribes submitted objections and engaged in lobbying. However, these objections were of a legal nature rather than purely political.

McFadden also found that Scotts Valley had shown no “clear evidence” that the rescission represented a “bare policy change masked by legal justifications.”

The tribe had also argued that the DOI’s move ignored its reliance interests, but the court disagreed. The judge wrote that such reliance was too limited—“those cases involved society- and industry-wide reliance … here, Scotts Valley relied on a parcel-specific determination that was eleven weeks old.” Thus, they did not trigger the protections used in other administrative reversals.

Due-Process Violation Found

Despite backing the DOI’s authority, McFadden concluded that the agency had violated the tribe’s constitutionally required procedural safeguards. He stated, “The Band’s gaming eligibility was a protected property interest and Interior provided too little process to rescind it.”

Once the parcel had been taken into trust and deemed gaming-eligible, “no further legal barrier stood in the way of class II gaming.” That gave the tribe a “legitimate claim of entitlement … so long as the agency’s discretion to rescind it was constrained sufficiently to give [the Band] an expectation in its continued effect.”

The DOI admitted it gave “no warning before rescinding its gaming eligibility.” The March 27 letter cited only a vague “concern that the Department did not consider additional evidence submitted after the 2022 Remand.”

That, McFadden wrote, forced the tribe “to guess at the critical basis for the adverse action.” It violated due-process standards that require notice “reasonably calculated … to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”

Broader Context: California’s Tribal Gaming Tensions

The Vallejo ruling comes amid a string of disputes around tribal casinos across California. In September, a judge blocked the Koi Nation casino project after opponents—backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom—challenged the federal land-into-trust process.

The case was similar to Scotts Valley’s situation. It centered on how the DOI interprets the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act’s (IGRA) “restored lands” exception and tribal historical connections to specific sites.

Ongoing frictions have also persisted between tribal casino operators and commercial cardrooms. Recently, the cardrooms scored a legal victory, where the court struck down a tribal lawsuit over state regulatory powers.

The tensions have also spilled into sports betting. Earlier this month, the San Manuel Tribe formally rejected efforts to advance a commercial wagering framework for online sports betting in the state.

Around the same time, several tribal leaders called for immediate action against Kalshi’s sports-based prediction markets. They allege the platform violates the IGRA and tribal sovereignty.

Outside California, earlier this month, a federal judge dismissed the Colorado tribes’ online sports-betting dispute. He ruled that IGRA does not extend to mobile wagering conducted off tribal lands.

Each of these decisions highlights how tribal sovereignty, state interests, and federal oversight remain intricately intertwined, and how courts continue to shape the contours of Indian gaming regulation.

The court’s decision means the Scotts Valley Band’s long-running bid to open a Vallejo casino remains alive. It also remains on hold—until Interior completes its review under stricter procedural safeguards.