The Scotts Valley Tribe is challenging a reversal by the Department of the Interior in federal court. This dispute centres on the DOI’s decision to undo earlier approval of the tribe’s casino project in Vallejo. Their legal fight comes as trends in online gaming are proving a major disruptor to the industry. 

Between the wealth of online casinos now available to players and more states considering regulated iGaming industries, physical casinos are under a lot of pressure. Driving the demand is the range of payment methods and other conveniences offered by these sites. Many newer platforms now accept methods like Cash App, signalling how gaming projects now intertwine with innovation in funding and finances. 

According to casino expert Andjelija Blagojevic, online casinos that take Cash App now draw scores of local players by offering instant deposits, low minimums, and strong privacy. That same convenience drives interest in large-scale projects like this one. The shift toward these payment methods reflects a wider change in how gaming ventures are funded and pursued.

The tribe’s lawsuit centers on the DOI’s determination earlier this year that affirmed its position. In doing so, the DOI recognized the tribe’s land in Vallejo was indeed eligible for a casino project This follows ordinary federal rules in terms of tribal land in the region. Earlier court action made this affirmation possible. This came after the court instructed the DOI to reassess why it had previously denied the tribe this right.   

To ensure all was within the legal framework on their end, the tribe put in considerable effort to prove its ancestral ties. It also completed environmental reviews and forged community partnerships to complete this process as diligently as possible. 

In March, the DOI reversed that finding, stating it would reopen its record and reconsider whether the 128-acre site qualifies under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act’s “restored lands” exception. The DOI said additional evidence submitted by other tribes warranted another look. In response, the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians filed suit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Tribal rights have become a hot-button issue in recent years, one exacerbated by other issues in the state as outcries against the levels of homelessness and immigration continue to be heard.    

Opposing tribes—such as the United Auburn Indian Community and Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation—had already submitted evidence during the DOI’s administrative review, but lost. They then filed separate lawsuits against the reversal in late March, citing ancestral connections of their own. Those tribes argue the DOI failed to weigh competing historic claims properly before approving the tribe’s land eligibility. They named the three tribes as plaintiffs against the DOI’s 2025 action.

A judge has denied intervention requests from the Graton Rancheria, United Auburn, and Yocha Dehe Wintun. The court ruled these tribes lack standing to join Scotts Valley’s lawsuit. That decision streamlines the legal battle, focusing on whether the DOI may set aside a final determination that had already gone through judicial review and federal procedures.

Now the court must weigh evidence from both the DOI and the opposing tribes. That might include documentation of historic land use, tribal oral histories, and legal precedent around restored lands.

If the court lets the DOI proceed, the tribe’s casino project could be delayed indefinitely. The reversal blocks final permitting and halts development planning. It may also delay job creation and economic investment for Vallejo, since the project includes a casino, hotel, entertainment complex, and community facilities.

Supporters of the tribe argue that this legal back-and-forth threatens tribal sovereignty and investment. They note that local Vallejo officials had agreed development could align with city plans. The tribe hopes the court will prevent the DOI from erasing its prior ruling while the main suit continues. A hearing on the restraining order is scheduled in the coming months, though no firm date has been announced.

Because the DOI reversed its earlier ruling while papers were filed, this court must decide if that reversal was lawful. If not, the original January 2025 decision could be restored for good. The tribe is asking the court to prevent the DOI from revisiting or rescinding now. They cite rights settled through court orders and public review processes.

If the tribe succeeds, the land trust remains intact and the gaming project may proceed. That would clear the way for final approvals, construction, and eventual opening. The case could still face appeals from the DOI or opposing tribes, but would mark a legal setback for those groups.

The Scotts Valley Band had submitted applications in 2016. The DOI initially denied trust status in 2019. This led to the court challenge. A 2022 court order later confirmed that a fresh review was now necessary. January’s approval followed that process. The DOI’s March reversal reopened that cycle.

Opposing tribes may still file appeals if the court denies them further standing. They may pursue their own challenges through separate litigation. The DOI itself may appeal any court order that restricts its review process. As a result, the litigation may stretch well into 2026. The restraining order hearing will set the pace. If the injunction is granted, final review may occur while the original approval stands. If denied, the DOI’s action may block the tribe until a full trial. 

At present, the tribe maintains its legal claim is solid. It notes the DOI approval followed a thorough review, environmental clearance, and court order. They argue the reversal was politically driven, in part by pressure from larger tribal gaming interests. Their lawsuit seeks to restore stability to the decision.

The court’s ruling will clarify whether finalized agency approvals can be undone without fresh court orders. It will test how much protection tribes enjoy once they win land trust and gaming applications. It could shape future relations between tribes and the federal government, particularly in the Bay Area.

The trial judge may issue rulings on admissibility, standing, and timing. Expert testimony may include tribal historians, archaeologists, and administrative law scholars. Court orders from 2022 and January 2025 will be analysed. The question is whether the DOI can legally withdraw the approval.

No matter the outcome, this case places one of California’s most closely watched tribal projects at the centre of federal judicial interpretation.

This case remains active in the US District Court in D.C., filed as Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians v. Douglas Burgum, et al., Case No. 1:25‑cv‑00958. No final decision has been reached. The court docket indicates early briefing is underway and hearing dates will be published soon.