Complaint alleges widespread violations of constitutional rights
Napa Valley, September 5, 2024 — After years of their concerns falling on deaf ears, three Napa wineries have joined forces to sue Napa County in federal court to address longstanding violations of constitutional rights. The participating wineries are Summit Lake Vineyard, Smith-Madrone Winery, and Hoopes Vineyard.
The wineries have hired Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, PLC, a law firm with experience in bringing constitutional claims against local governments on behalf of wineries. Joseph Infante of Miller Canfield is lead counsel for the wineries. He explained, “We have seen the same sort of restrictions Napa County has put in place in other jurisdictions around the country and those wineries who have finally had enough with the government overreach have been very successful in having federal courts strike down the unconstitutional ordinances.”
At issue are the wineries’ abilities to host visitors and events in their tasting rooms and to serve samples and glasses of wine. The wineries had those rights when they were formed, but Napa County stripped them away with recent changes to its winery database. Napa County has asked wineries to enter a voluntary compliance program to get those rights back. To Napa County, “voluntary compliance” means that wineries must spend millions of dollars for public improvements and hundreds of thousands more in attorney fees in exchange for a handful of visitors per week. Napa County also requires that wineries get prior approval from third parties, pay the County’s legal costs in the event of a lawsuit by a third party, and agree to use a certain percentage of grapes grown in Napa Valley.
The claims brought by the wineries are far-reaching and extensive. “We are small family-owned winery businesses 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 suit, the wineries allege that their rights to host visitors and events in their tasting room and to serve samples and glasses of wine to their customers are protected by the First Amendment and California law. They also allege that Napa County violates the First Amendment when it requires wineries to get prior approval before hosting events and when it regulates “cultural events” at wineries based upon the message delivered at those events.
Another concern is the lack of definitions for terms like “tastings” and “marketing.” Napa County does not have clear definitions for these terms, so interpretation is left to the discretion of County staff. Without clear guidance, County staff can change the rules on a whim and threaten to shut down wineries that do not comply, which violates the wineries’ Due Process rights.
The wineries also challenge Napa County’s “voluntary compliance” program. The County’s requirement to get approval from neighboring property owners and third-party groups violates the non-delegation doctrine, while the County’s requirements that wineries pay for public improvements and indemnify the County in the event of a lawsuit are an unconstitutional exaction. Finally, the wineries challenge Napa County’s requirement to use 75% local fruit as unlawful economic protectionism. This follows a trend in recent years of federal courts striking down local produce requirements in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause, including a requirement to use 51% Minnesota grapes and a requirement to use 85% Peninsula Township, Michigan grapes. This claim does not relate to American Viticultural Area (“AVA”) labeling standards, which will remain intact.
For details about the specific counts, please refer to the complaint at https://napawinerieslawsuit.org/filings/
“Only by going to the federal courts can we protect our constitutional rights to ensure fairness in being regulated by Napa County,” 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, ever-changing interpretations of the road and street standards or other issues, there is a desperate need to find fairness, professionalism and integrity in how we are regulated,” they added.
The vintners are hoping Napa County will reassess all of its unconstitutional and inconsistent practices so that agricultural businesses can not only survive but thrive. “Our wineries and vineyards sit on beautiful agricultural properties with stunning views. We want to share that with wine lovers. But Napa County prohibits us from allowing customers to come onto our properties and it allows our neighboring wineries to welcome customers. If our wineries are going to survive, we need the ability 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 got my use permit which allows me to host customers at my winery,” Stu Smith explains. “Now 48 years later, without my being notified or being allowed to be present to defend my rights, the County arbitrarily and capriciously changed my permitting to 0 visitors/day and somehow came up with 10 visitors/week. ‘New Math’ or just regular old math, it is still true that zero times anything is zero. I only found this out by stumbling upon Napa County’s winery database. This is insane governmental overreach; Kafka would be pleased,” Smith adds.
“We’re doing this not only for ourselves but for all other small wineries in Napa County who are in similar situations and afraid to do anything because of the County’s history of retaliation,” Smith continues. “By getting rid of these oppressive and unconstitutional regulations, small family wineries will be able to thrive again. It will also allow us to compete on a more equal footing with other California wine growing areas,” he adds.
The group has received considerable interest in this case. The number of plaintiffs may increase as the case goes through the courts. Donations to support the case are welcome at https://www.gofundme.com/f/stand-with-napa-wineries-for-constitutional-rights
More detail about the wineries:
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 the Spring Mountain District, founded in 1971: https://www.smithmadrone.com/
More details about the vintners:
Heather Brakesman-Griffin is a partner of Summit Lake Vineyard, founded by her father Robert Brakesman in 1971, and general manager of Summit Lake Vineyards & Winery LLC, founded in 1984 on the mountain growing region of Howell Mountain in the Napa Valley. The winery is recognized for its estate-grown Zinfandel and Cabernet Sauvignon, and is the longest family owned and operated vineyards and winery on Howell Mountain, producing 2,500 cases a 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 operation with her two sons. Today she has re-created the winery to be an “oasis” which includes an animal sanctuary and extensive gardens as well as a picturesque winery location. A trained litigator, she was an Assistant District Attorney in San Francisco and today teaches law at UC Law San Francisco while also running the winery.
Stuart Smith founded Smith-Madrone at the top of the Spring Mountain District growing region in the Napa Valley in 1971. The winery is recognized for its estate-grown Riesling, Chardonnay, Cabernet Sauvignon and proprietary Bordeaux blend, Cook’s Flat Reserve. Smith has taught viticulture and enology at local colleges and served on the County’s 1998 Napa River Watershed Taskforce and was a member of the 2008 General Plan update. He also has chaired the 1986 Napa Valley Wine Auction and was a member of the Board of Directors for the Napa County Farm Bureau in 2000. Stuart is considered an expert on dry farming as well as mountain viticulture. Smith-Madrone produces approximately 4,000 cases a year.
