On Thursday, California’s casino-owning tribes sued their rival card rooms including Commerce Casino, pictured here.
(
CalMatters
)
Topline:
After winning a costly legislative battle last year, California’s casino-owning tribes have sued their rivals in the gambling business. Cities could lose money if the tribes prevail in court.
More details: On their first opportunity since a new law took effect Jan. 1, seven casino-owning Native American tribes filed suit in Sacramento County Thursday against dozens of California card rooms, opening a new front in one of last year’s most expensive political battles.
Why it matters: The suit would not have been possible if Gov. Gavin Newsom hadn’t signed Senate Bill 549 in September. Tribes say California voters years ago gave them the exclusive rights to host the disputed table games, which they use to benefit historically disenfranchised tribal communities.
How have cardrooms responded? In a statement, a card room industry representative said the cardrooms are “in full compliance with the law.”
On their first opportunity since a new law took effect Jan. 1, seven casino-owning Native American tribes filed suit in Sacramento County Thursday against dozens of California card rooms, opening a new front in one of last year’s most expensive political battles.
Now, millions of dollars of tax revenues that pay for city services such as police and road repairs could be in jeopardy.
The tribes’ suit alleges that the gambling halls scattered across California are illegally offering card games such as black jack and pai gow poker that cut into the tribes’ gambling revenues.
“Defendants brazenly profit from illegal gambling,” the tribes said in the opening line of their lawsuit.
In a statement, a card room industry representative said the cardrooms are “in full compliance with the law.”
“This attempt by tribal casinos to shut down lawful competition by tax-paying California businesses will fail,” the statement said.
The suit would not have been possible if Gov. Gavin Newsom hadn’t signed Senate Bill 549 in September. Tribes say California voters years ago gave them the exclusive rights to host the disputed table games, which they use to benefit historically disenfranchised tribal communities.
But because the tribes are sovereign governments, they lacked legal standing to sue the state’s 80 or so privately-owned gambling halls.
The bill gave tribes a three-month window to sue card rooms starting Jan. 1. They filed the lawsuit on the first day California courts opened for business in the new year.
Under the bill, tribes cannot receive any money or attorneys’ fees from the lawsuit. Instead, judges will only decide whether card rooms can continue to offer the disputed games.
The stakes are high since some cities receive nearly half of their budgets from taxes on cardrooms, meaning a tribal victory in court could jeopardize money for police, firefighters and other local services.
For example, nearly two thirds of the budget for the small city of Hawaiian Gardens and almost half for the city of Commerce, both in Los Angeles County, come from local card rooms.
San Jose City Councilmember Sergio Jimenez told lawmakers in July that the city receives $30 million each year from card rooms, enough to fund 150 police officers or 133 firefighters. Jimenez said that money’s in jeopardy if the tribes end up prevailing in court.
The card room industry claims the games are legal and that the attorney general’s office has approved each of them over the years.
The suit comes after tribes persuaded lawmakers last year to pass SB 549 in what was one of the most costly political fights of the two-year legislative session that concluded last summer.
A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, many of them with large tribal casinos in their districts, pushed for the gambling measure, while a smaller group of lawmakers with card rooms in their districts opposed it.
It followed a failed 2022 sports betting initiative that the tribes spent millions of dollars to sponsor and that included a similar provision that would have let the tribes sue.
The opposing gambling interests donated at least $4.3 million to the 120 members of the Legislature since January 2023, according to the Digital Democracy database.
Facing what they saw as an existential threat, card rooms responded to SB 549’s introduction with a massive lobbying blitz. In 2023, Hawaiian Gardens Casino alone spent $9.1 million on lobbying, the second highest amount reported to state regulators. Only the international oil giant, Chevron Corp., spent more.
Then, despite losing the battle over SB 549, the card room industry spent more than $3 million in the lead up to the November election in retaliation against four lawmakers who played key roles in the bill’s passage.
Three of the candidates targeted by the card rooms ended up losing, including the bill’s author, Democratic Sen. Josh Newman of Fullerton.
Here are three takeaways from the hour-long NBC4 and Telemundo 52 debate in Universal City. Each candidate was given about a minute to answer a question, with another 30 seconds each for rebuttals and follow-ups.
What did the candidates say about homelessness?
Bass has repeatedly pointed to a drop in homelessness under her tenure — a trend that faltered this past year, according to the results of the annual homeless count. After two years of declines, homelessness jumped 3.4% in the city of Los Angeles.
During the debate, she acknowledged the recent increase, but pointed to several council districts where homelessness dropped, including Raman’s.
“ The main reason homelessness went down is because our efforts with Inside Safe,” Bass said, crediting the program for removing three large encampments from Raman’s district. Raman represents Council District 4, which stretches from parts of Silver Lake to the Hollywood Hills and Reseda.
L.A. Mayor Karen Bass took shots at her challenger, at one point describing City Councilmember Nithya Raman as " contemptuous of her constituents."
(
Courtesy NBC4 and Telemundo 52
)
Inside Safe is Bass’ signature homelessness program that moves people from encampments into motels and interim housing. Raman has criticized the program, arguing it has wasted money and its approach had not changed since it launched nearly four years ago.
“ Under this mayor's leadership, we have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into an incredibly expensive program, Inside Safe, which has been unaccountable to the public, for which she has refused audits," she said. " And it looks exactly the same as it did on day one.”
Both candidates seemed to agree that there needs to be more transparency in the city’s homelessness system.
Bass said the city needs to be in complete control: “ No more joint working with the county.”
Raman said every homelessness dollar needs to be monitored and every service performance tracked to actually respond to Angelenos’ needs.
What did the candidates say about policing?
Raman confirmed during the debate that she wants to replace Jim McDonnell as chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, saying he had lost the trust of Angelenos, especially in response to federal immigration raids.
Asked whether she would replace McDonnell before the 2028 Olympics, Raman didn’t give a timeline. She said it would depend on other factors and decision makers, such as the Police Commission and L.A. City Council.
“ I promise you, Angelenos, I promise you, there is no decision that I will take as your mayor that will put you in danger,” Raman said. “Everything will be done with care, and with the advice of all of the people that are involved in making sure that you are safe as these Olympics approach.”
L.A. City Councilmember Nithya Raman criticized L.A. Mayor Karen Bass' signature homelessness program, Inside Safe, and her administration's response to major fires.
(
Courtesy NBC4 and Telemundo 52
)
Bass pressed Raman on the issue, saying the council member doesn’t have “any idea” what it takes to pick a police chief.
“ We are 640 days away from the largest sporting event to ever take place — a major national security event — and if you think that you're gonna find a police chief, you would send the department in disarray by doing that,” Bass said.
Both candidates weighed in on the LAPD’s use of Automated License Plate Readers, otherwise known as ALPRs.
Raman said she’s been “very skeptical” of these kinds of mass surveillance technologies and would want to see hard proof that the data would not be shared with ICE.
Bass said she thinks ALPR’s have a place in crime prevention, but she does not support a renewed contract with Flock, describing the company as “completely uncooperative.”
What did the candidates say about emergency response?
Bass has been heavily criticized for her administration’s response to last year’s Palisades Fire, and she apologized during the debate for not being in L.A. “when my city needed me.” Bass was in Ghana when the fires ignited as part of a Biden administration delegation for the inauguration of the country’s new president.
Bass said the city would be ready to respond to the next catastrophic wildfire, in part under new leadership from Fire Chief Jaime Moore.
“ As a matter of fact, we're preparing for what is a potential Red Flag daythis Thursday,” Bass said. “He has already reached out to the state for additional resources. He is planning to pre-deploy in the Palisades and other high-risk fire areas.”
Raman honed in the Palisades Fire, as well as this summer’s Lineage warehouse fire in Boyle Heights, describing both as a “failure” of leadership from the mayor. Raman said she would have handled the Lineage fire differently.
“ I will make sure that our community is met with resources, evacuation support and the information they need in the languages that they need, which this community did not get during these fires,” she said.
Aaron Schrank
has been on the ground, reporting on homelessness and other issues in L.A. for more than a decade.
Published October 13, 2026 6:20 PM
Volunteers for L.A.'s annual homeless count end their night on Jan. 20, 2026.
(
Jordan Rynning
/
LAist
)
Topline:
An L.A. homelessness planning body voted today to have L.A. County officials take over the region’s yearly homeless count and handle applying for federal homelessness funds on behalf of the region — two jobs currently held by the embattled L.A. Homeless Services Authority.
The details: The decision by the L.A. Continuum of Care — in a 310 to 9 vote — comes after the Trump administration sidelined the agency, known as LAHSA, from the federal-facing roles it’s held for decades. It signals a loss of power for LAHSA and a major shift in homelessness oversight for the L.A. area, passing significant control of the region’s homelessness response to L.A. County officials.
What's next: If Tuesday’s selections are approved by a federal judge, L.A. County’s Department of Homeless Services and Housing will soon be in charge of conducting the region’s annual point-in-time homelessness tally, instead of LAHSA. The county would also take over the responsibility for submitting annual homelessness funding applications for hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, on behalf of the whole region.
The timeline for these responsibilities being fully transferred away from LAHSA is expected to be determined by a federal judge in the coming weeks.
A Los Angeles homelessness planning body voted Tuesday to have L.A. County officials take over the region’s yearly homeless count and handle applying for federal homelessness funds on behalf of the region — two jobs currently held by the embattled L.A. Homeless Services Authority.
The decision by the L.A. Continuum of Care — in a 310-9 vote — comes after the Trump administration sidelined the agency, known as LAHSA, from the federal-facing roles it’s held for decades. It signals a loss of power for LAHSA and a major shift in homelessness oversight for the L.A. area, passing significant control of the region’s homelessness response to L.A. County officials.
The details
If Tuesday’s selections are approved by a federal judge, L.A. County’s Department of Homeless Services and Housing will soon be in charge of conducting the region’s annual point-in-time homelessness tally, instead of LAHSA.
The county would also take over the responsibility for submitting annual homelessness funding applications for hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, on behalf of the whole region.
Volunteers at the 2023 L.A. homeless count review the map of Westwood prior to heading out.
(
Samanta Helou Hernandez
/
LAist
)
The timeline for these responsibilities being fully transferred away from LAHSA is expected to be determined by a federal judge in the coming weeks.
How we got here
LAHSA is the city and county’s joint-powers homelessness authority. In June, HUD suspended the agency from performing its federal-facing responsibilities, citing financial mismanagement. LAHSA sued. In August, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter paused LAHSA’s suspension. He also ordered the L.A. Continuum of Care to run an evaluation process to replace LAHSA in federal roles within 60 days.
The L.A. Continuum of Care is a HUD-recognized group representing homeless services providers, government agencies and community advocates across L.A. County. It’s responsible for choosing the entity that fills these federal roles. The Trump administration’s suspension of LAHSA forced the group to consider alternatives.
L.A. County’s Department of Homeless Services and Housing was the only agency or organization that applied to manage both the homeless count and the region’s yearly application for federal homelessness dollars.
What’s next?
While a report is due to Carter on Tuesday, Oct. 13, the full selection process he ordered is not yet complete. The L.A. Continuum of Care still needs to vote on its final designations for who should succeed LAHSA in two other federal roles: managing a database that tracks unhoused Angelenos and running the system used to match people with shelter and housing. The city of Los Angeles and L.A. County are competing for those roles.
A vote scheduled Oct. 9 was delayed when over 1,000 people overwhelmed the Zoom capacity. It will be rescheduled — no date has been set yet.
The court’s preliminary injunction pausing LAHSA’s suspension is set to expire on Oct. 27.
Keep up with LAist.
If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.
Hollywood Park is campaigning to block Mayor Butts
By Isaiah Murtaugh Barish | The LA Local
Published October 13, 2026 2:30 PM
General interior view of SoFi Stadium during an NFL football game during an NFL football game between the Los Angeles Chargers and the Arizona Cardinals in Inglewood, Calif., Sunday, Sept. 13, 2026.
(
Kyusung Gong
/
AP Photo
)
Topline:
Hollywood Park, the home of SoFi Stadium, is throwing its financial weight into a campaign to block Inglewood Mayor James Butts’ bid for reelection on Nov. 3, according to campaign finance records.
Why it matters: The Take Back Inglewood campaign is the latest signal that Butts’ ties to SoFi Stadium owner Stan Kroenke are unraveling as the city battles its stadiums over billboard deals and $400 million in infrastructure payments.
The backstory: Since last summer, Inglewood officials and the stadiums have been duking it out in court over the terms of their relationship and the city’s financial deals with billboard operator WOW Media. Judges have ruled in favor of the WOW arrangement, but last month voided the city’s contract with Hollywood Park.
Hollywood Park, the home of SoFi Stadium, is throwing its financial weight into a campaign to block Inglewood Mayor James Butts’ bid for reelection on Nov. 3, according to campaign finance records.
Inglewood’s stadium interests have supported Butts politically and financially in past elections, according to reporting from the LA Times, but a spokesperson for the Hollywood Park-funded campaign said stadium officials lost confidence in Butts.
“The relationship changed because, in their experience, they could no longer trust him to deal with them honestly and fairly,” Shallman said. “Political support isn’t a lifetime contract.”
Butts fired back in an interview with The LA Local that the campaign is about trying to protect Hollywood Park’s business interests.
“They believe because they have millions to spend on advertising, they can manipulate the electorate into voting against someone that has changed the entire trajectory and value of our city” the four-term mayor said, adding in a later written statement that his record speaks for itself.
Since last summer, Inglewood officials and the stadiums have been duking it out in court over the terms of their relationship and the city’s financial deals with billboard operator WOW Media. Judges have ruled in favor of the WOW arrangement, but last month voided the city’s contract with Hollywood Park.
Now, both sides are pouring millions into Inglewood’s election, looking to sway voters.
A new batch of election finance filings released Monday in response to a public records request from The LA Local show Take Back Inglewood is entirely funded by $750,000 from Hollywood Park. Butts’ own campaign, by comparison, has spent $264,085 this year out of just over $610,000 in total funds.
Fernando Guerra, a Loyola Marymount University political scientist, said the campaign dollars are unsurprising. Inglewood’s place as an international sports and entertainment hub has turned it into a prime place for a contentious, expensive election, Guerra said.
“It’s par for the course when you combine contracts and politics and cities needing to raise revenue,” Guerra said. “The higher the stakes, the more the money that’s going to be spent.”
Butts told The LA Local he sees the stadium campaigns as paternalistic, and that they treat voters as pawns in Hollywood Park’s economic interests.
Shallman countered that the campaign is not tied to the stadium development’s disputes with the city and said Butts has in the past defended the support he received from Inglewood venues. The stadium development, he said, has a natural stake in the race through its employees.
“These aren’t outsiders who parachuted into Inglewood. The venues have invested billions of dollars in the city, created thousands of jobs,” he said. Shallman added that locals have aired their own criticisms of Butts’ leadership.
Butts isn’t without his own allies. Billboard interests have put $80,000 into the mayor’s reelection campaign since January alone, with more coming from real estate firms. Butts said campaign donations don’t influence his decisions as mayor.
“My decisions are driven by the needs of our community,” Butts said.
Take Back Inglewood isn’t backing any of the five candidates running against Butts, Shallman said, at least for now.
“They reserve the right to weigh in if they feel the need,” Shallman said. “The key at this stage is to make sure voters are aware of his record.”
Parishioners cheer at the start of a public accountability assembly hosted by One LA-IAF at Precious Blood Church in Westlake in Los Angeles, Calif. on Oct. 11, 2026.
(
Isaac Ceja
/
The LA Local
)
Topline:
Hundreds of people from different faith backgrounds attended the public accountability assembly at Precious Blood Church hosted by One LA-IAF, a network of diverse religious and nonprofit institutions across Los Angeles County. The forum included Mayor Karen Bass and Councilmember Nithya Raman, along with candidates for L.A. County sheriff.
Why it matters: The key issues discussed during the event included: immigration, public safety, sidewalk repair and sex trafficking.
Read on... for more on what was said at the forum.
Los Angeles resident Noemi Tagorda’s mother and grandmother used to go to Langer’s Delicatessen, buy chicken and enjoy their meal with a relaxing picnic in MacArthur Park. Tagorda shared her story during her address to Mayor Karen Bass regarding public safety at a candidate forum on Sunday in a Westlake church.
“That’s virtually impossible for anyone to experience now,” Tagorda said. “Now when you say MacArthur Park, you think of a place that is destitute, [where] there’s just a lot of human suffering, and it’s not a place where you think you can go and relax.”
Hundreds of people from different faith backgrounds attended the public accountability assembly at Precious Blood Church hosted by One LA-IAF, a network of diverse religious and non-profit institutions across Los Angeles County.
Mayor Karen Bass says farewell during a public accountability assembly hosted by One LA-IAF at Precious Blood Church in Westlake in Los Angeles, Calif. on Oct. 11, 2026.
(
Isaac Ceja
/
The LA Local
)
The forum included Bass and Councilmember Nithya Raman, along with candidates for L.A. County sheriff.
Parishioners like Tagorda walked up to the stage to share their stories and faith leaders then asked each candidate if they were willing to work with One LA-IAF to address the issues while giving each candidate a minute to respond.
The key issues discussed during the event included: immigration, public safety, sidewalk repair and sex trafficking.
Manuel Olvera, a member of St. Anthony Catholic Church in San Gabriel, shared the story of a friend and immigrant churchgoer who asked Olvera to share his story on his behalf due to fear.
In the story, Olvera shared that the man and his son had recently lost their jobs due to the current situation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and have been living off of their savings for months.
“It’s not just difficult trying to survive financially,” said Olvera in Spanish on the immigrant’s behalf. “It’s also having your home be a prison.”
Nithya Raman stands at the podium during a public accountability assembly hosted by One LA-IAF at Precious Blood Church in Westlake in Los Angeles, Calif. on Oct. 11, 2026.
(
Isaac Ceja
/
The LA Local
)
On immigration
Councilmember Raman committed to hosting an immigration retreat and meeting with One LA-IAF. She shared that she is also an immigrant from India, who arrived in the US when she was 6.
She added that Bass proposed to cut legal defense funds in the last budget. The city council eventually approved $1.5 million in funds for the immigrant legal defense program in the final budget earlier this year.
“If I am elected mayor, I will make it higher and ensure that immigrants who are facing deportation have the resources they need to be able to respond.”
Mayor Bass made the same commitment as Raman with One LA-IAF but when it came to the topic of immigration, she chose to focus on her past work of being part of a congressional hearing alongside Congressman Robert Garcia.
“It was several months ago, but you came to me and you proposed the idea of doing a city hearing on immigration, we established a great partnership then,” said Bass to One LA-IAF. “And what we did was we actually turned it into an official congressional hearing and what I am hopeful is that in the next 25 days or so, I try not to count, we will have a change in the House of Representatives.”
Manuel Olvera shared the story of a fellow parishioner who was afraid to speak due to his immigration status during a public accountability assembly hosted by One LA-IAF at Precious Blood Church in Westlake in Los Angeles, Calif. on Oct. 11, 2026.
(
(Isaac Ceja
/
The LA Local
)
On public safety
Bass wants to focus on differentiating between drug dealers and drug users and fighting for residential drug treatment if elected to a second term in office.
“We need to separate those people who prey on our people, who are the drug dealers and the criminal element, from the people who are addicted to the drugs, and we need to get treatment for those people,” Bass said.
Raman shared the successes on reducing homelessness in her district and wants to center a compassionate response to the ongoing crisis.
“We have had incredible results on addressing homelessness, a 50% reduction in the number of people living on the street just last year, even as homelessness went up citywide,” Raman said. “I do not believe that a compassionate response to the crisis on our streets and the safety of our residents have to be in conflict.”
Closing statements
For the final question, organizers asked each candidate if they were willing to meet regularly to address the topics discussed, collaborate on other issues if needed and if the candidate was willing to host a retreat.
Bass said that she believes the group meets regularly with her office and agreed to not only host the retreat, but also being there in person.
“I believe the way you bring about change is from the inside and outside strategy,” said Bass. “That’s a must-do, and I also think it’s important that if you really believe in change and if you really believe in all the issues we talk about, then you’ve got to show up. You’ve got to be there. It’s not just about your idea or all of that, but you have to be there.”
Raman said that the needs in the city are so great and city resources are not enough to address them, so she is happy to commit to partnering with One LA-IAF.
“I know from my work on the council that nothing succeeds without partnership with the people, and so I’m deeply committed to coming to you and partnering with you before we put any of this forward, so that we face the highest likelihood of success, and so that we can lift up our city and its needs together,” Raman said.
Tagorda, who is also a parent of a student at Precious Blood school, told the LA Local that she was happy seeing people from different faiths and parts of the city participating in the event.
“It’s really great to have that cross-religious platform of all the different religious organizations coming together and sharing the same stories and working together to get the government’s attention on issues that are important to us as a community,” said Tagorda.
Looking for the facts about what’s on the ballot and how it will affect your neighborhood? Visit thelalocal.org/electionsfor voter guides, news and more.
