A Costly Defeat for the City of Dallas
Dallas poured significant public funds into a years-long effort to shut down Texas Card House (TCH). In 2023 alone, Dallas chief building official Andrew Espinoza received over $370,000 from the city council to cover legal expenses for litigation against TCH and the city’s Board of Adjustment (BOA) over a Certificate of Occupancy dispute. Additional taxpayer money was spent in 2024 and 2025 as the case continued.
All that spending culminated in a loss. On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court denied Espinoza’s appeal, bringing the three-year legal battle close to an end. The dispute centered on whether TCH could continue to operate its Dallas poker club.
Supreme Court Shuts the Door
The high court’s refusal to hear Espinoza’s appeal leaves in place a prior appellate decision from August 2024 that favored TCH. Ryan Crow, owner of Texas Card House, said he expects this to mark the conclusion of the long-running Dallas case.
The Dallas venue has operated throughout the litigation and now stands on firmer ground following the state’s top court declining further review.
How the Dispute Unfolded
What began as a routine approval turned into a protracted courtroom clash. Here’s the key timeline:
| Date/Period | Event | Outcome/Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 2020 | City council hearing approves TCH to operate a poker club in Dallas | Certificate of Occupancy granted |
| October 2022 | City revokes TCH’s authorization | TCH appeals to the Board of Adjustment |
| Post–Oct 2022 | BOA rules in favor of TCH | Permit reinstated |
| Subsequently | Espinoza sues TCH and the BOA | City side prevails at that stage |
| August 2024 | TCH’s attorneys appeal | TCH wins on appeal |
| Friday (recent) | Espinoza seeks review at the Texas Supreme Court | Supreme Court denies appeal; TCH’s appellate win stands |
The Legal Crux: Certificates, Rake, and Texas Penal Code 47.04
At the center of the case was TCH’s Certificate of Occupancy and whether its issuance and continued validity were lawful under Texas’s strict anti-gambling framework.
- Espinoza argued that TCH had been initially “issued in error” a Certificate of Occupancy.
- TCH’s attorneys countered that the revocation stemmed from “lobbying or a change of mind about a reasonably disputable application of law.”
A lower court initially found that TCH violated the state’s penal code prohibitions on gambling and keeping a gambling place. Yet Texas Penal Code 47.04 provides an exception that has enabled poker clubs to operate so long as they do not collect rake. In line with that model, compliant Texas rooms charge membership and seat fees instead of taking a portion of each pot.
The challenge: some city officials and lawmakers interpret Section 47.04 differently, insisting that no form of public poker is lawful regardless of the fee structure. The appellate ruling in August 2024, left undisturbed by the Texas Supreme Court’s denial, sided with TCH’s position in this dispute.
Industry Support Came From The Lodge
Texas Card House wasn’t alone. The Lodge Card Club—near Austin and San Antonio and co-owned by Doug Polk, Andrew Neeme, and Brad Owen—filed an amicus brief supporting the right to play poker in Texas. The show of unity underscored how consequential the Dallas case was for the broader Texas poker ecosystem.
What It Means for Texas Poker
Texas Card House operates six poker clubs statewide, with the Dallas room long in the crosshairs of the city’s anti-poker stance. With the Supreme Court declining to intervene, the appellate victory stands and the Dallas location’s operating status looks more secure.
While the ruling doesn’t settle every debate around Texas’s private-club poker model, it is a clear win for TCH and sends a positive signal for the membership-and-seat-fee model used by Texas poker clubs. For the poker community in Texas, Friday’s outcome marks the close of a prolonged fight and offers a useful reference point for clubs operating within the rules.
