A rule repealing Rule 61D-11.027, Florida Administrative Code, has been filed but will not be in place by February 7, 2006 due to a challenge filed against the rule. Therefore, this Emergency Rule is necessary to prevent persons regulated by those rules from conducting “no limit” game play. Legalized gambling, such as cardrooms authorized by Section 849.086, Florida Statutes, is an area of law that Florida courts have routinely held is subject to very strict regulation. See PPI, Inc., 698 So. 2d 306. In fact, the Florida Supreme Court, in Hialeah Race Course, Inc. vs. Gulfstream Park Racing Association, 37 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1948), stated that, “[a]uthorized gambling is a matter over which the state may exercise greater control and exercise its police power in a more arbitrary manner because of the noxious qualities of the enterprise as distinguished from those enterprises not affected with a public interest and those enterprises over which the exercise of police power is not so essential for the public welfare.” This very principle was echoed in Rodriguez vs. Jones, 64 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1953). Similarly, in Jordan Chapel Freewill Baptist Church vs. Dade County, 334 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), the Third District Court held that legalized gambling falls into the same category as the regulation of drugs and liquor and, therefore, should be afforded the same strict regulation. In particular, the Third District held that “‘[g]ambling (or authorized gambling in the case of bingo) is an exceptional situation which has always been closely controlled in Florida for the protection of the public. Rodriguez vs. Jones, 64 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1953)” Id. at 666. Given the facts presented, this Emergency Rule is fair under the circumstances. There is an immediate and continuing need to make clear that tournaments must comply with the wagering limits of Section 849.086(8)(b), Florida Statutes. The remaining provisions of Rule 61D-11.027, Florida Administrative Code, are in clear conflict with the rationale contained in the Final Order, and therefore the repeal of those provisions must be continued. Furthermore, Emergency Rule 61DER05-1, was challenged in Hartman-Tyner, Inc., St. Petersburg Kennel Club, Inc., West Flagler Associates, Ltd., Southwest Florida Enterprises, Inc., Washington County Kennel Club, Inc., and Daytona Beach Kennel Club, Inc. vs. DBPR, DPMW, DCA Case No. 1D05-5430, and an immediate stay of the Emergency Rule was requested. Although the challenge is still pending, the First District Court of Appeal denied the request for an immediate stay.