The Poker and Blackjack Gaming Authorization Act of 2025 would legalize wagering on poker and blackjack in the District of Columbia, but only in tightly regulated, physical locations. It creates a new Title V governing “card gaming,” defines key terms, and limits participation to eligible establishments that already hold certain ABCA on-premises liquor licenses and obtain both an ABCA endorsement and an Office of Lottery and Gaming (OLG) operator’s license. The bill expressly excludes online, virtual, and electronically determined card games from authorization.
The measure sets up a licensing and regulatory framework for operators, suppliers, and employees. Operators would pay application and renewal fees, undergo background checks and inspections, and comply with rules on internal controls, security, surveillance, age verification, recordkeeping, and game integrity. Employees involved in poker and blackjack would need occupational licenses, and suppliers would need permits. The bill also requires participation in a voluntary exclusion program and mandates signage and other consumer-protection measures at gaming areas.
The bill would also impose a 25% tax on poker and blackjack gross gaming revenue, with monthly reporting to the Chief Financial Officer. The first $250,000 of annual tax revenue would go to the Lottery, Gambling, and Gaming Fund, and any remaining revenue would go to the District’s General Fund. In addition, the CFO would be authorized to adopt implementing rules, and OLG, ABCA, MPD, and the Attorney General would receive enforcement powers including inspections, seizures, fines, license suspension or revocation, and civil actions. The bill also amends Title 25 to add card gaming endorsement requirements for licensed establishments and updates related provisions for game-of-skill machines.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available materials is generally supportive and administrative rather than contentious. The Attorney General found the draft legally sufficient, and the Chief Financial Officer concluded that funds are sufficient to implement the bill in fiscal years 2026 through 2029. The fiscal note also indicates no immediate additional revenue estimate because the number of participating establishments is uncertain and card gaming could displace other taxable sales.
The main points of contention appear to be policy and regulatory design rather than outright opposition. The bill draws a clear line against online or electronic card gaming, limits participation to adults 18 and older, and places significant control in ABCA, OLG, and the CFO. It also raises practical questions about how many establishments will seek authorization, how the new gaming activity will interact with existing alcohol-licensed businesses, and whether the District will need additional regulatory staffing if participation grows.
The bill would amend the District’s gambling and alcohol-licensing laws to create a new legal category for poker and blackjack card gaming at approved brick-and-mortar establishments. It would add new licensing, endorsement, taxation, enforcement, and operational requirements to the D.C. Code, including changes to the Law to Legalize Lotteries, Daily Numbers Games, and Bingo and Raffles for Charitable Purposes, Title 25 licensing provisions, and an exemption in Section 16-1702 for authorized card gaming. It also revises related rules for game-of-skill machines and adds new operating standards for establishments that host card gaming.
Available fiscal and legal review materials indicate a generally favorable or neutral posture toward the bill. The Office of the Attorney General certified the draft as legally sufficient, and the Chief Financial Officer stated that funds are sufficient to implement it within the current financial plan. There is no recorded vote or committee transcript in the provided materials, so no formal legislative opposition or support can be identified beyond the administrative reviews. The bill appears to be framed as a regulated expansion of gaming rather than a controversial overhaul.
The principal areas of concern are the scope of legalization and the level of regulation. The bill authorizes only in-person poker and blackjack, excluding online and electronic versions, which may reflect concern about consumer protection and game integrity. It also imposes substantial oversight through licensing, inspections, surveillance, age checks, and penalties, suggesting sensitivity to underage gambling, problem gambling, and criminal misuse. Another likely point of debate is the bill’s effect on existing licensed businesses and whether card gaming will meaningfully generate new revenue or simply shift spending from other taxable activities. The lack of a reliable estimate of participating establishments is also a practical uncertainty noted in the fiscal analysis.