April 13, 2026 (San Francisco and Napa Valley, CA) — Hoopes Vineyard, Summit Lake Vineyards, and Smith-Madrone Winery jointly sued Napa County in federal court on September 5, 2024. The lawsuit alleged that the County violated the wineries’ constitutional rights through restrictive, ever-changing, and unconstitutionally vague regulations on winery tours, tastings, and marketing.
In a new development, on April 13, 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion. “This memorandum represents a major win for Napa Valley wineries in the battle against overregulation at the hands of the County,” explained the wineries’ attorney, Joseph Infante.
“Today the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s dismissal of the three Napa Valley wineries’ claims against Napa 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,” he added.
“Further, the appellate court determined the District Court erred in dismissal of Smith-Madrone and Summit Lake’s challenge to the legality of Napa County’s ordinances which regulate wineries. While the appellate court affirmed the District Court’s decision to stay Hoopes Vineyard’s challenges to the legality of those same ordinances while a state court case plays out, Hoopes is still able to seek damages in federal court once the state court case is completed. This case represents a major win for Napa Valley wineries in the battle against overregulation at the hands of the County,” Infante said.
What happens next?
“Summit Lake and Smith-Madrone’s claims go back to the District Court and Hoopes’ retaliation claim goes back to the District Court. Hoopes’ other claims remain stayed,” Infante explains.
This decision comes on the heels of another momentous win for wineries’ rights. Last summer, the wineries of the Old Mission Peninsula in Michigan won a nearly $50 million judgment against Peninsula Township after the Peninsula Township enforced similar grape source requirements and event bans. Joseph Infante and his team at Miller Canfield represented the wineries.
Background:
On March 10, attorneys for Hoopes/Summit Lake/Smith-Madrone appeared before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to appeal the District Court’s orders abstaining in part and dismissing in part plaintiffs’ claims challenging Napa’s ordinances pertaining to on-premises winetasting and advertising. The three-judge panel listened to presentations from attorneys for the wineries and Napa County.
Attorneys for the wineries hoped that the Court of Appeals would reverse the District Court’s decision and send the case back so the wineries could bring their challenges to the ordinances: this has now happened.
What about the Hoopes v. Napa County case in state court?
This case is separate from Napa County et al. V. Hoopes Vineyard LLC, et al. For the latest on Hoopes Vineyard’s state court lawsuit challenging the excessive fines imposed by the County, contact media@pacificlegal.org.
The wineries:
https://www.hoopesvineyard.com/oasis-by-hoopes
https://www.summitlakevineyards.com
The attorney/s:
Joseph Infante, Miller Canfield: https://www.millercanfield.com/
