Judge revives federal lawsuit against Napa County by three wineries

by Barry Eberling, Napa Valley Register, April 15, 2026 |

A federal appeals court’s three-judge panel ruled that much of a lawsuit filed against Napa County by Hoopes Vineyard, Smith-Madrone Winery and Summit Lake Vineyards over county winery regulations can continue.

Previously, a judge had dismissed the 2024 federal lawsuit for the time being. He reasoned that the Napa County Superior Court was addressing the issues after the county sued Hoopes in 2022 for alleged code violations.

Napa County won that superior court trial that, among other things, alleged Hoopes hosted wine tasting visitors illegally. Hoopes is trying to overturn the decision in state appeals court.

Meanwhile, Hoopes, Smith-Madrone and Summit Lake wineries tried to continue their federal lawsuit over county winery regulations. They went to federal appeals court to try to reverse the dismissal.

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that much – but not all – of that federal suit is not addressed in the Napa court case and can go forward.

“This memorandum represents a major win for Napa Valley wineries in the battle against overregulation at the hands of the county,” said the wineries’ attorney, Joseph Infante, in a news release.

County spokesperson Holly Dawson said the county is reviewing the decision and evaluating next steps.

The federal lawsuit filed said Napa County winery laws are based on an “ever-changing patchwork of undocumented ‘policies’ and procedures” that make it difficult for wineries to decipher what is and is not allowed. Among other things, it challenged visitor restrictions and the county’s 75% Napa County grape content rule for post-1990 wineries.

“Napa County’s actions have violated numerous Constitutional rights of county wineries, including plaintiffs’, and it is time they end,” the filing said.

The county responded in court papers, saying it seeks to protect the Agricultural Preserve where farming is required to be the dominant use. County officials created the preserve in 1968 to strictly limit non-farm development outside of its five cities.

“Because most commercial uses and services are directly at odds with this agricultural purpose, permissible land use in the agricultural preserve district, even at Napa County’s most famous wineries, are quite limited and are carefully spelled out in the county’s zoning code,” the county filings said.

With the federal appellate court ruling, Smith-Madrone and Summit Lake can challenge some of Napa County’s winery regulations. While Hoopes cannot do so until the state case is completed, it will then be able to seek damages in federal court, according to the statement by the wineries.

Another issue is alleged retaliation by the county.

“The appellate court determined that the District Court erred in the dismissal of all three wineries’ claims that Napa County violated their First Amendment rights when it retaliated against them with adverse code enforcement actions,” Infante said.

Hoopes alleged the county looked for code violations at Lindsay Hoopes’ home in retaliation for filing a cross-complaint in the Superior Court case.

Next, Summit Lake’s and Smith-Madrone’s claims and Hoopes’ retaliation claim will return to federal district court. Hoopes’ other claims remain stayed, Infante said.

Last summer, the wineries of the Old Mission Peninsula in Michigan won a nearly $50 million judgment against Peninsula Township after the township enforced similar grape source requirements and event bans. Infante and his team at Miller Canfield represented the wineries, the news release said.