The complaint alleges widespread violations of constitutional rights.

Napa Valley, September 5, 2024 — After years of their concerns going unheard, three Napa wineries have joined forces to sue Napa County in federal court to address long-standing constitutional rights violations. The participating wineries are Summit Lake Vineyard, Smith-Madrone Winery and Hoopes Vineyard.

The wineries hired Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, PLC, a law firm with experience in pursuing constitutional claims against local governments on behalf of the wineries. Joseph Infante of Miller Canfield is the winery’s lead attorney. He explained, “We’ve seen similar restrictions that Napa County has implemented in other jurisdictions across the country, and wineries that have finally had enough of government overreach have had great success in getting unconstitutional ordinances overturned in federal courts.”

The dispute concerns the wineries’ ability to host guests and events in their tasting rooms and serve samples and glasses of wine. The wineries had those rights when they were created, but Napa County took them away with recent changes to its winery database. Napa County has asked the wineries to enter a voluntary compliance program to regain those rights. For Napa County, “voluntary compliance” means the wineries must spend millions of dollars on public improvements and hundreds of thousands more in attorney fees in exchange for a handful of guests a week. Napa County also requires the wineries to get prior consent from third parties, pay the county’s legal fees if a third party sues them and agree to use a certain percentage of grapes grown in the Napa Valley.

The claims brought by the wineries are far-reaching and extensive. “We are small, family-owned wineries trying to protect our constitutional rights,” said Heather Brakesman-Griffin of Summit Lake Vineyard, Lindsay Hoopes of Hoopes Vineyard and Stuart Smith of Smith-Madrone Winery in a joint statement.

In their lawsuit, the wineries argue that their rights to host guests and events in their tasting room and to serve samples and glasses of wine to customers are protected by the First Amendment and California law. They also argue that Napa County violates the First Amendment when it requires wineries to obtain prior approval before hosting events and when it regulates “cultural events” at wineries based on the messages conveyed at those events.

Another problem is the lack of definitions for terms like “tastings” and “marketing.” Napa County doesn’t have clear definitions for these terms, so interpretation is left to county staff. Without clear guidance, county staff can change the rules at will and threaten to close down wineries that don’t comply, violating the due process rights of wineries.

The wineries are also challenging Napa County’s “voluntary compliance” program. The county’s requirement to obtain consent from neighboring property owners and third-party groups violates the doctrine of nondelegation, while the county’s requirement that wineries pay for public improvements and indemnify the county in the event of a lawsuit is an unconstitutional extortion. Finally, the wineries challenge Napa County’s requirement to use 75 percent local fruit as illegal economic protectionism. This follows a trend in recent years in which federal courts have invalidated local product requirements in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause, including the requirement to use 51 percent Minnesota grapes and the requirement to use 85 percent grapes from Peninsula Township, Michigan. This claim does not apply to American Viticultural Area (“AVA”) labeling standards, which will remain intact.

For more information about the specific allegations, please see the complaint at https://napawinerieslawsuit.org/filings/

“Only by going to the federal courts can we protect our constitutional rights to ensure fairness in how Napa County regulates us,” Lindsay Hoopes of Hoopes Vineyard, Heather Brakesman-Griffin of Summit Lake Vineyard and Stuart Smith of Smith-Madrone Winery said in a joint statement. “Whether it’s unfair and capricious manipulation of the winery database, constantly changing interpretations of road and street standards, or other issues, there is an urgent need to find fairness, professionalism and integrity in the way we are regulated,” they added.

Winemakers hope Napa County will reevaluate all of its unconstitutional and inconsistent practices so that agricultural businesses can not only survive, but thrive. “Our wineries and vineyards are located on beautiful farmland with stunning views. We want to share that with wine lovers. However, Napa County prohibits us from allowing customers onto our property and allows our neighboring wineries to accept customers. If our wineries are to survive, we need to be able to sell our wines to customers on-site,” said Heather Brakesman-Griffin.

“In 1971, I went before the Board of Supervisors at a public hearing and obtained a use permit that allows me to entertain customers at my winery,” explains Stu Smith. “Now, 48 years later, without notifying me or allowing me to be present to defend my rights, the county has arbitrarily and capriciously changed my permit to 0 visitors/day and somehow it’s 10 visitors/week. The ‘new math,’ or just plain old math, is still true that zero times anything equals zero. I only found out about this when I stumbled upon the Napa County winery database. This is an insane abuse of power by government; Kafka would be pleased,” Smith adds.

“We’re not just doing this for ourselves, but for all the other small wineries in Napa County who are in similar situations and are afraid to do anything because of the county’s history of retaliation,” Smith continues. “By getting rid of these oppressive and unconstitutional laws, small family wineries will be able to thrive again. It will also allow us to compete on a more level playing field with other California winegrowing areas,” he adds.

The group has received significant interest in the case. The number of plaintiffs could grow as the case progresses through the courts. Donations to support the cause are welcome at https://www.gofundme.com/f/stand-with-napa-wineries-for-constitutional-rights

More details about the vineyards:

Hoopes Vineyard in Yountville, founded in 1983: https://www.hoopesvineyard.com/

Summit Lake Vineyards & Winery on Howell Mountain, founded in 1984: https://www.summitlakevineyards.com/

Smith-Madrone Vineyards & Winery in Spring Mountain County, founded in 1971: https://www.smithmadrone.com/

More details about the winemakers:

Heather Brakesman-Griffin is a partner in Summit Lake Vineyard, founded by her father, Robert Brakesman, in 1971, and CEO of Summit Lake Vineyards & Winery LLC, founded in 1984 in the Howell Mountain wine region of Napa Valley. The winery is known for its estate-grown Zinfandel and Cabernet Sauvignon wines and is the longest-running family-owned vineyard and winery on Howell Mountain, producing 2,500 cases per year.

Lindsay Hoopes is the CEO and majority owner of Hoopes Vineyard. Her father, Spencer Hoopes, founded Hoopes Vineyard in Oakville in 1983 and later founded Hoopes Vineyard in Yountville in 1999. Lindsay continues the business with her two sons. Today, she has recreated the winery as an “oasis” complete with an animal sanctuary and extensive gardens, as well as a picturesque winery location. A trained litigator, she has served as an assistant district attorney in San Francisco and currently teaches law at UC Law San Francisco while running the winery.

Stuart Smith founded Smith-Madrone at the top of Napa Valley’s Spring Mountain District in 1971. The winery is known for its estate-grown Riesling, Chardonnay, Cabernet Sauvignon and a proprietary Bordeaux blend, Cook’s Flat Reserve. Smith has taught viticulture and enology at local colleges and has served on the county’s 1998 Napa River Watershed Taskforce and was a member of the 2008 General Plan update. He also chaired the Napa Valley Wine Auction in 1986 and served on the Napa County Farm Bureau board in 2000. Stuart is considered an expert in dry-farming and mountain viticulture. Smith-Madrone produces about 4,000 cases per year.