The Legal Fight Between Napa County and Small Wineries Continues

By Aaron Romano } May 5, 2026 | Wine Spectator |

Do Napa Valley wineries get to decide how to host tastings? That’s the crux of an ongoing legal battle in America’s most famous wine region. Several Napa Valley wineries are grappling with unexpected lawsuits and potential multimillion-dollar penalties stemming from the interpretation of a 1990 ordinance regulating wineries. These legal woes are raising complex questions about grandfathered rights, land use and the equilibrium between agricultural preservation and the county’s support for small wineries.

For Lindsay Hoopes, the survival of her family winery is at stake. Hoopes’ battle with the county began in 2019, when officials cited Hoopes Vineyard for unpermitted tastings and other activities, such as yoga classes and the sale of non-wine products. The county said those were not allowed under the winery’s operational license, but Hoopes disagrees. After multiple rounds in court, a judge imposed nearly $4 million in fines and attorney fees on Hoopes Vineyard in November 2025.

While Hoopes’ is an extreme case, it’s part of a growing legal battle. Hoopes is also part of a three-winery federal lawsuit filed in 2023: Smith-Madrone and Summit Lake Vineyards and Winery filed the case with Hoopes, claiming that the county is retroactively restricting them from conducting business. They, like Hoopes, have long believed they have the right to host tastings.

These fights underscore a broader conflict in the county, as many vintners and growers believe the county is imposing confusing regulations—and enforcing them inconsistently. Others have filed similar lawsuits over use permits and water rights in recent years. Vintners allege that the county isn’t supporting the wine industry, especially small wineries. 

Is A Tasting Room an Essential Part of a Winery?

The legal battles center on Napa County’s 1990 Winery Definition Ordinance (WDO), which set parameters for winery operations. The law came about as tourism grew in the valley, and some winemakers and grapegrowers worried that an increasing number of cellars were more focused on visitors than on winemaking. 

The WDO’s centerpiece was a requirement that 75% of wine made by a Napa winery needed to be made from Napa Valley grapes. But additional rules governed how many visitors wineries could welcome and whether they could host events and sell food and products other than wine.

Existing wineries were supposed to be grandfathered in, provided they didn’t make major changes. Small wineries—producing fewer than 8,500 cases a year—were exempt from WDO formal use permits if they complied with exemption rules, such as not expanding production.

Lindsay Hoopes has been fighting the Napa County regulations for more than six years, in a case that threatens her winery’s survival. (Evan Roscoe)

Hoopes, Smith-Madrone and Summit Lake Vineyards believed they qualified for these exemptions. The county disagrees. Additionally, Hoopes holds an O-2 license, a state issued license permitting the production, storage and sale of wine, including in a tasting room, and state law prohibits local governments from revoking such rights.

In August 2024, Hoopes asked a judge to dismiss the Napa lawsuit against her winery after finding evidence which she says proves that the county reclassified property entitlements for her winery and more than 20 others.

In the federal case, the wineries argue that their rights to host visitors are protected by the First Amendment and state law–if a court agreed, it could effectively end Napa’s limits on number of visitors. While a federal judge dismissed their case last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision last week.

“Sending it back is a win and means the district court was wrong to dismiss the case, and we get to litigate our claims,” explained the wineries’ attorney, Joseph Infante. Infante was also a lawyer in a recent case in which Michigan wineries won a $50 million judgment over similar visitation restrictions.

The Ninth Circuit is expected to send the case back to the district court this week, after which the latter court will likely schedule a conference to determine the next steps.

An Existential Threat

But Hoopes faces a more urgent threat in state court. In 2022, the county filed a nuisance lawsuit against her hosting tastings and other activities, which led to countersuits, a trial resulting in a liability decision in favor of Napa County, an appeal and an injunction. In November 2025, a court imposed nearly $4 million in fines and attorney fees on Hoopes Vineyard. That’s more than the winery, which her father founded, has made in its 45 years of existence.

Earlier this year, Hoopes’ attorneys filed a motion to reduce or eliminate the fines, arguing they are excessive and violate the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I of the California Constitution, which prohibit excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment. Fighting fines with wine, Hoopes recently released an Eighth Amendment Proprietary Red Wine as part of a Save Our Small Wineries fundraising effort.

A California appeals court has since paused both the fines and a permanent injunction against tastings, allowing Hoopes to keep her tasting room open during the appeal.

Stu Smith joined Hoopes’ federal lawsuit after Napa officials told him he was not supposed to host tastings at Smith Madrone. (Courtesy of Smith Madrone)

“The government cannot impose crushing penalties on small business owners like Lindsay Hoopes for lawful conduct. Courts have a duty to ensure that fines are proportionate and respect fundamental rights,” said Bridget Conlan, an attorney who represents Hoopes in the case. Conlan said the court has suggested setting an expedited briefing schedule.  

Hoopes, a former assistant district attorney in San Francisco, is optimistic. “A court will not grant a stay of any kind if the merits do not raise serious questions of constitutional concern,” she said. “The stay is a good indicator that the court believes the merits raise important legal issues and have a likelihood of success on appeal.”

Napa officials disagree. “The recent ruling was procedural and does not address the merits of the case or determine whether the claims have legal validity. The Court also made clear that the federal case cannot be used to undermine the County’s ongoing nuisance abatement action in state court, which remains the appropriate forum for resolving the issues with Hoopes,” said Holly Dawson, chief communications officer for Napa County.

“The state trial court, after a full hearing of the evidence, ruled in favor of Napa County and determined that violations of land use law had occurred,” she added. “We will continue to follow the judicial process and remain focused on our responsibility to enforce land use laws fairly and consistently to protect the Agricultural Preserve and ensure a level playing field for all wineries.”

If the California Court of Appeals finds the fines excessive, it could return the case to the trial court. Napa County officials could, in turn, appeal to the California Supreme Court for review.

As these cases proceed, their outcome could rewrite not just how Napa’s wineries operate, but also what the region’s future may look like.