A judge ruled on Monday that the city could not close Texas Card House while it awaited the outcome of its appeal.
By Everton Bailey Jr.
A Dallas poker establishment will remain open while it fights the city’s efforts to shut it down.
According to a court order signed on Monday by District Judge Eric Moye, Dallas officials cannot force Texas Card House to close or interfere with its ongoing operations until a final ruling on the poker club’s appeals of the city revoking its certificate of occupancy is issued.
The decision is the result of a lawsuit filed in April by the city’s top building inspector against Dallas’ citizen Board of Adjustment, which disagreed that Texas Card House should lose its certificate after city attorneys and building officials changed their minds about whether poker businesses could legally operate in Dallas.
Last month, Moye stated that he believed the city was justified in revoking Texas Card House’s certification and agreed with the city’s current position that the business violates Texas’ gambling ban. Texas Card House’s attorneys also filed notice Monday that they intend to appeal Moye’s decision to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas.
Texas Card House is one of at least three poker establishments in Dallas. The city is attempting to shut them all down through legal means. Meanwhile, earlier this month, proposed state legislation was filed in an attempt to legalize gambling in Texas as well as close a loophole in the state’s gambling ban that had been used to allow poker businesses.
Texas Card House’s attorney, Brian Mason, declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation. Dallas City Attorney Chris Caso did not respond immediately to a request for comment on Wednesday.
The Board of Adjustment also overturned the city’s decision to revoke Shuffle 214’s certificate of occupancy, prompting Chief Building Official Andrew Espinoza to sue the board in May. The case is currently set for trial next summer.
The owners of Poker House of Dallas were sued by the city earlier this month for code violations, claiming that their operation as a poker room is not officially registered with the city. According to the lawsuit, when it received its most recent certificate of occupancy from the city in 2017, the business was known as La Zona Rosa Cabaret.
In 2021, the owners submitted a new land-use statement to the city, informing them that the business would allow customers to pay to play card games and that its new name would be Poker House of Dallas. According to the lawsuit, the group never received city approval, and its current certificate of occupancy only allows it to continue operating as a strip club.
According to Roger Albright, an attorney for Shuffle 214 and Poker House of Dallas’ parent company, Badger Tavern LP, the city’s claims in the latest suit are “just wrong.”
He agreed that the new land-use statement had been submitted, and he mentioned that the city had issued a revised copy of the certificate of occupancy, which listed the business as Poker House of Dallas. The permitted land use for the site is commercial amusement inside, which is a facility that provides entertainment or skill games to the public for a fee. According to Albright, this classification includes strip clubs and poker establishments.
The city was aware of the move away from a strip club and granted building permits to allow the space to be modified as a poker business, according to the lawyer.
“They already have pending litigation that is much further along the legal path,” Albright explained. “I just don’t understand why the city is wasting our tax dollars with additional lawsuits as opposed to waiting for the courts or the legislature to make a final determination on all this. It just doesn’t make sense.”
In Texas, gambling is illegal, including betting money or anything of value on any game involving cards, dice, balls, or other devices. However, it is legal if the games take place in a private location, no one receives any economic benefit other than personal winnings, and all players have an equal chance of winning except for the advantage of individual skill or luck.
Poker supporters argue that it is a game of skill and does not fall under the category of explicit gambling. Poker businesses have been permitted to operate legally throughout the state by charging patrons membership or access fees rather than directly collecting money from the games. Membership fees, food and beverages served, and cash tips generate revenue for businesses and employees.
The businesses argue that any winnings given to workers directly by players do not violate the law because tips are not required and players are free to spend their winnings however they see fit.
However, ambiguity in a section of the law regarding who is and isn’t allowed to receive financial benefits from the games is one of the key issues dividing some cities.
On Nov. 16, state Rep. Gene Wu, D-Houston, introduced House Bill 732, which seeks to clarify Texas gambling law by allowing gambling in a “private residence” rather than a “private place.” Supporters of the poker industry have argued that poker clubs are private spaces because no one can play without paying a fee.
“The definition has been stretched, massaged, twisted, and pulled to what we see today,” Wu explained. “The law was not intended to cover a commercial enterprise where anyone could come off the street, pay a fee, and play. That is not personal.”
State Sen. Carol Alvarado, D-Houston, introduced legislation on November 14 to amend Texas’ constitution to allow casinos and sports betting.
The proposal calls for the legalization of sports betting, the establishment of a state commission to oversee the licensing and regulation of casino gaming, and the imposition of a gaming revenue tax.
Wu claimed he accidentally filed a draught version of his bill. According to him, the proposal was supposed to include the ability for counties to regulate and license poker businesses. It would be up to them to figure out how that would happen.
“Regulation at the city level is excessive. “Statewide regulation is unsustainable, so let the county do it,” he says. “The goal is to go after bad actors and have some kind of mechanism in place to shut down operations of people who aren’t doing what they’re supposed to be doing.”