Published by Vinetur
Napa Valley Wineries Take Legal Action Against County Over Regulatory Disputes
In a significant development for Napa Valley’s wine industry, three local wineries—Summit Lake Vineyards, Smith-Madrone Vineyards & Winery, and Hoopes Vineyard—filed a joint lawsuit in federal court last week, accusing Napa County of systematically violating their constitutional rights. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, marks the latest in an escalating conflict between winemakers and local authorities over regulation and enforcement practices.
For years, Napa winemakers have voiced frustration over what they perceive as excessive government intervention, inconsistent application of regulations, and a lack of transparency. The legal clash shines a light on deeper tensions between small producers and county officials, who are accused of hindering the growth and operations of Napa’s boutique wineries. With Napa welcoming nearly four million visitors annually—many of whom are drawn to the region’s smaller vineyards—these issues are far-reaching.
In 2015, 68 percent of Napa’s wineries produced fewer than 20,000 cases annually. This segment of the industry is now sounding the alarm that the county is not adequately supporting their operations, despite their vital contribution to the region’s tourism and economic vitality. Owners of these smaller vineyards have faced mounting challenges in obtaining permits for new facilities and have cited steep costs related to wastewater treatment requirements. A federal investigation into potential corruption in the permitting process is currently underway, with the FBI requesting records from several wineries in Napa.
The lawsuit filed by the three wineries alleges that Napa County has been regulating their operations based on unwritten and shifting “policies,” leaving wineries unsure of what is legally permissible. They argue that the few written ordinances that do exist are so vague that they leave ample room for arbitrary enforcement, allowing county officials to restrict or alter winery operations at their discretion.
Summit Lake Vineyards, situated in Napa’s Howell Mountain region, applied for an increase in production capacity in 2019. Local authorities responded with a mandate that the owners pave a gravel road at considerable expense before the request could be approved. Summit Lake was also informed that the wine tastings they had been conducting were, in fact, illegal under current county regulations. Hoopes Vineyard, another plaintiff, contends that the only recourse available to protect their constitutional rights is through federal court intervention, citing a need for clearer, fairer regulations.
Lindsay Hoopes, the owner of Hoopes Vineyard, emphasized the importance of fair treatment for Napa’s small wineries, many of which operate under historically established exemptions. Hoopes has been embroiled in a legal battle with the county for five years over alleged violations related to hosting tastings and yoga classes on her property. She maintains that her winery has a longstanding exemption that permits such activities, while the county disputes the validity of that exemption. In August, Hoopes sought to dismiss the case, having uncovered evidence that, according to her, indicates the county secretly altered the property rights of her winery and over 20 others.
Both Summit Lake Vineyards and Smith-Madrone have also operated under similar exemptions dating back to the passage of Napa’s Winery Definition Ordinance in 1990. They claim that these exemptions have always allowed them to conduct tastings. Yet, in recent years, county officials have reversed their stance, telling the wineries that tastings are no longer permitted. Stu Smith, owner of Smith-Madrone Vineyards & Winery, noted that his winery has hosted tastings since receiving its permit in the 1970s. But more recently, the county informed him that his permit now only allows zero visitors per day or ten visitors per week—a drastic reduction that he says has come without any clear explanation.
The wineries argue that their right to host visitors and offer wine tastings is protected under the First Amendment and California law. The lawsuit further contends that the county is infringing on their rights by requiring advance approvals for events, with the county allegedly regulating these events based on the type of message being conveyed during them.
In a joint statement, Stu Smith and Heather Brakesman-Griffin of Summit Lake Vineyard highlighted their need for justice and a more professional approach to regulation. Among their complaints, they point to the county’s manipulation of the winery database and shifting interpretations of road safety standards as examples of inconsistent enforcement.
Napa County officials have yet to comment on the specifics of the lawsuit, stating that they are still reviewing the complaint.
This legal battle is part of a growing debate over the future of small wineries in Napa Valley, which face a complex regulatory environment and rising operational costs. While the county has a vested interest in maintaining its reputation as one of the world’s premier wine destinations, balancing tourism, environmental concerns, and the rights of small business owners has proven to be a contentious task. As this case unfolds, it could set important precedents for how Napa County—and potentially other wine regions across California—regulate wineries in the future. For the plaintiffs, the hope is that the courts will deliver much-needed clarity and fairness, ensuring that the region’s small, family-run wineries can continue to thrive in the face of growing regulatory pressures.
