A legal conflict surrounding a proposed $700 million casino in Vallejo has intensified, leading to a multi-tribal court battle, with the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians requesting the dismissal of lawsuits initiated by other tribes operating rival gaming establishments in Northern California.

According to the Times-Herald, the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians submitted their final brief on Friday, advocating for the dismissal of three federal lawsuits filed against the U.S. Department of the Interior. These legal actions challenge the department’s decision from January 10, 2025, to place 160 acres of land in Vallejo into trust for gaming, tribal governance, and housing purposes.

The lawsuits were initiated by tribes that run Cache Creek Casino, San Pablo Lytton Casino, and Thunder Valley Casino Resort. Each lawsuit questions the trust classification that would permit Scotts Valley to advance its casino development plan.

Scotts Valley has filed motions to intervene and to have the lawsuits dismissed in the following cases:

• Lytton Rancheria of California v. US Department of the Interior (No. 1:25-cv-1088-TNM)
• United Auburn Indian Community v. US Department of the Interior (No. 1:25-cv-00873-TNM)
• Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation v. US Department of the Interior (No. 1:25-cv-00867-TNM)

In its submissions, Scotts Valley contends that the trust land is essential for tribal government activities, economic growth, and providing housing and services to its members.

“These lawsuits are attempts to hinder the Tribe from exercising its sovereign right to engage in economic development on its ancestral land,” stated Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians Chairman Shawn Davis on Friday. “Two of the casinos in question are over an hour away from our land and lack justification to disrupt a fair and transparent process, solely to safeguard their own financial interests. We will not submit to greed. It is unjust. We will persistently defend the Tribe’s rights, history, and economic future — for both Scotts Valley and Vallejo.”

Scotts Valley aims to construct a 24/7 $700 million casino. The proposed development encompasses 24 single-family homes, a tribal administration facility, a parking garage, and a 45-acre biological reserve.

Located within and adjacent to Vallejo’s city limits in Solano County, the site is close to the Interstate 80 and Highway 37 interchange.

The proposed casino is currently undergoing a federal review. In late 2025, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden rejected Scotts Valley’s efforts to nullify the reconsideration process related to the project’s gaming eligibility.

During the same week, the Department of the Interior indicated that its initial endorsement of the casino proposal might have been based on a “legal error.” The department noted that evidence provided by local tribes raised concerns about whether the Vallejo site meets the criteria for gaming. Judge McFadden remarked that Scotts Valley “would be ill-served” by depending on the previous gaming eligibility assessment while reconsideration is ongoing.

Several tribes have challenged the project, including the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation, Lytton Rancheria of California, and United Auburn Indian Community. In January, the tribes released a joint statement expressing “serious concerns” about a temporary preview casino while the Interior Department continues its evaluation.

Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Chairman Anthony Roberts asserted in September that there are disputes regarding ancestral claims to the Vallejo site. Scotts Valley referenced Chief Shuk Augustine, a Pomo leader who passed away in 1903, as having lived in Vallejo and utilized the land. However, Yocha Dehe challenges this assertion.

“Let me clarify. Augustine never resided in Vallejo and did not use or occupy lands here,” Roberts stated. “He had no ties to this land or the surrounding regions. The claims made by Scotts Valley concerning Augustine are simply false and factually incorrect. As descendants of individuals who genuinely occupied these lands, we find these assertions insulting and distressing. Moreover, we provided the Department of the Interior with factual evidence well before its January decision. Yet the ruling indicates that our evidence was overlooked. The agency disregarded it.”