They didn’t ask for a fight. They just wanted to grow grapes, make wine, and build a life off the land.

But the wineries of Michigan’s Old Mission Peninsula found themselves in a cage match with their own local government—one that dragged on for years, drained their energy, and threatened to strangle everything they’d built.

The legal team at Miller Canfield helped lead the charge, representing the wineries in a federal case that became a referendum on small business rights in the face of government overreach.

On July 7, 2025, after an 11-day bench trial and more than a decade of petty harassment and arbitrary zoning rules, U.S. District Court Judge Paul Maloney delivered a message that echoed far beyond the cherry orchards and tasting rooms of northern Michigan.

Maloney ruled overwhelmingly in favor of a dozen small wineries, declaring that Peninsula Township’s zoning laws were unconstitutional, anti-competitive, and flat-out abusive. He awarded the wineries millions in damages.

This wasn’t just a local land-use fight. It was a test of whether small businesses still have rights in the face of government overreach—and the wineries won.

The Backstory: Vines, Vision, and a War of Attrition

For years, the wineries on the Old Mission Peninsula—a 19-mile sliver of land that juts into Lake Michigan—had been boxed in by restrictive, vague, and selectively enforced zoning laws. They were told what grapes they could buy (only local), how many people they could host (strict caps), what kind of music they could play (no amplified instruments), and what kinds of groups could meet in their space (only approved nonprofits or agricultural groups from the area).

Even food service and basic signage became battlegrounds.

The message from the Township was clear. You can grow grapes and pour wine, but don’t get too successful. Don’t invite the public. Don’t become a destination. Stay quiet, stay small, and stay under control.

But these weren’t big corporations looking to pave paradise. These were family-run businesses, often multi-generational, with dirt under their nails and sweat in their eyes. And they’d had enough.

The Lawsuit: Small Wineries, Big Principles

In 2020, eleven wineries and their trade group, Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula (WOMP), filed a federal lawsuit against Peninsula Township. They weren’t asking for favors—they were asking for fairness.

They argued that the Township’s zoning ordinances violated:

• The First Amendment, by forcing wineries to promote “Township agriculture” at every event.

• The Dormant Commerce Clause, by requiring grapes to be sourced from inside Peninsula Township.

• Due Process, by using vague and inconsistently enforced rules like the undefined “Guest Activity Use.”

• State law, by overriding Michigan’s liquor and agricultural codes with local restrictions.

Intervening against them was a group called Protect the Peninsula, a self-described citizen watchdog group, which the judge bluntly labeled “a NIMBY group devoted to stifling development.”

The Trial: One Side Brought Facts, the Other Brought Silence

At trial, the wineries brought twelve fact witnesses—owners, operators, and experts who knew their businesses inside and out. They told the same story through different mouths: unreasonable restrictions, threats of enforcement, and a chilling effect on their ability to grow and operate.

Meanwhile, the Township called no witnesses. Not one. Instead, they leaned on decades-old government documents and meeting minutes—paper trails with no one to defend or explain them.

The judge wasn’t impressed.

In fact, Judge Maloney praised the wineries’ testimony as credible, compelling, and consistent. He dismissed the Township’s key expert as not credible and ultimately concluded that the wineries had been unfairly and unlawfully targeted.

A Moment That Said It All

The judge included one story in his ruling that seemed to crystallize the case.

Chateau Grand Traverse hosted a fundraiser for a beloved local teacher battling Stage 4 cancer. The winery planned to donate every cent from the night’s tastings.

That afternoon, a Township official called and threatened enforcement because they didn’t have a permit.

The winery owner, fed up, drove to Township Hall and demanded an explanation. He was told to make an appointment. Instead, he made a stand. The event went on. About 50 people came. No trouble. But the message from the Township had been sent loud and clear: we’re watching you.

As the judge noted, the Township’s enforcement didn’t protect anyone—it only discouraged decency and crushed community spirit.

The Verdict: Wineries Win Big—And So Does the Constitution

Judge Maloney struck down multiple sections of the Peninsula Township Zoning Ordinance as unconstitutional. He declared the grape sourcing mandates a violation of interstate commerce. He ruled the speech restrictions illegal. He said the zoning code was vague and confusing—leaving business owners in fear of unintentional violations.

He awarded millions in damages to the wineries.

He stopped short of issuing an injunction, noting that many of the worst ordinances had since been repealed. But the damage was done—and the record now crystal clear.

Why This Win Matters Nationwide

This case wasn’t just about Michigan. It was about any small producer—winery, brewery, or farm stand—facing similar bureaucratic bullying.

If you’ve ever been told you can’t host a harvest dinner without 12 layers of approval…
If you’ve been blocked from selling non-local goods even when your state license says you can…
If your local zoning board decides what music your customers are allowed to hear…

This ruling is your roadmap—and your warning shot.

It reminds local governments that they cannot steamroll farmers and entrepreneurs with vague rules and hidden agendas. It reminds producers that they have rights. And it reminds all of us that the Constitution doesn’t stop at the edge of a vineyard.

And this isn’t the end of the story

Miller Canfield is now involved in a similar legal challenge in Napa Valley— where another group of wineries is pushing back against local restrictions. What happened in Michigan may just be the opening chapter.