Nearly a dozen wineries on Old Mission Peninsula were handed a major victory Monday in a years-long federal lawsuit against Peninsula Township.

Judge Paul Maloney of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan collectively awarded the wineries nearly $50 million in damages for being restricted from hosting small and large events – one of several township zoning ordinances he found unconstitutional. Maloney said witnesses for the wineries “told a single story through 12 lenses: the Peninsula Township zoning ordinance was unreasonable, burdened their operations, and at times made them rethink continuing their enterprises on the Old Mission Peninsula.”

Maloney previously ruled that Peninsula Township rules requiring wineries to buy most of their grapes exclusively from Old Mission Peninsula farms violated the Commerce Clause. He also found regulations of “guest activities” to be unconstitutionally vague. Maloney determined that the wineries were unconstitutionally compelled in speech by being required to promote Old Mission Peninsula agriculture and forced to seek township approval to host meetings of nonprofits or agricultural groups “while lacking definite criteria to make an approval determination.”

Maloney appeared particularly persuaded by winery testimony during the trial, calling those who took the stand “model witnesses, knowledgeable, and tough to cross examine.” By contrast, Maloney noted that Peninsula Township did not call a single witness, while citizen group Protect the Peninsula – which intervened in the case – called one expert to opine on the reasonableness of the township’s zoning ordinance. Maloney said that expert was “not credible” and faltered under cross-examination.

“The court has no trouble concluding that the facts at trial largely favored plaintiffs,” Maloney wrote. “Instead of calling witnesses, the township relied on government documents, some of which were decades old.”

While Peninsula Township argued its zoning rules were intended to preserve the peninsula’s agricultural character, Maloney wrote they in fact made “operating a farm or winery more difficult...farms and wineries need alternate revenue streams to survive.” The alternative to “operating a failing business is selling the farmland for residential development,” Maloney said, citing testimony given by Chris Baldyga, owner of 2 Lads Winery and President of the Old Mission Peninsula Wine Trail. The judge added: “The Peninsula Township zoning ordinance provisions do not advance the township’s interest in maintaining rural character or keeping land in agriculture.”

Maloney did not provide injunctive relief, noting that Peninsula Township already repealed the zoning ordinance that was at the center of the case. While wineries have argued the current version of the zoning ordinance is still burdensome, Maloney said that version is “not the subject of this action.” He also declined to issued damages related to the wineries’ dispute over their allowed closing times, grape costs, and merchandise sales. Maloney objected to how damages were calculated for the latter two issues.

However, Maloney awarded nearly $50 million in damages to the wineries for their inability to host small and large events “in a manner consistent with reasonable business expectations.” He noted: “It was abundantly clear at trial that the confusion stemming from the Peninsula Township zoning ordinance caused a great many issues for the wineries.” The wineries “easily demonstrated” that the law was unconstitutionally applied to them, the judge wrote. Damage amounts varied per winery but were in the six or seven figures for most, up to nearly $12 million for Chateau Chantal.

Winery representatives issued written statements Monday celebrating the legal victory. "This outcome allows us to focus on what truly matters – our partnerships with local farms, fostering community engagement, being responsible stewards of the land and making world-class wines,” Baldyga wrote. “We couldn’t host small community or charity events or things like local farm-to-table dinners before; now, we look forward to creating more opportunities that bring us together."

"This result helps clarify rules we have sought to understand for years, allowing us to continue building our agricultural business on legally approved foundations," wrote Chateau Chantal Winery CEO Marie-Chantal Dalese. "Now, we seek to move forward together with our neighbors in a way that continues to preserve agriculture and recognizes legal business activities.”

Township Supervisor Maura Sanders said township trustees and staff were not yet prepared to comment on the ruling. The township will likely issue a statement in the coming week, she said. She also declined to say whether Peninsula Township will consider an appeal. TJ Andrews of Protect the Peninsula said the group was still analyzing the ruling, though she highlighted the judge’s refusal to issue injunctive relief as a loss for wineries. Andrews said it was “hard to make sense” of the damages awarded, calling the ruling “contradictory” in multiple sections. “Do I think the order is intellectually defensible? No,” she said. It is “premature” to say whether Protect the Peninsula will appeal the decision, Andrews said.

Joe Infante, attorney for the wineries, said he’s “operating under the assumption” that the township and/or Protect the Peninsula will likely appeal, though he believes the credibility of the wineries’ witnesses makes it “almost impossible” to overturn Maloney’s ruling. “They have a tough road ahead if they appeal,” he said. Infante called the ruling a “complete victory” for the wineries, adding the damages awarded “send a huge message to Peninsula Township and other local governments.”

Exactly how those damages will be covered remains unclear. Infante said Peninsula Township declined to answer questions about how much insurance it carries. “No one will know the answer to that question until the township tells everyone how much insurance they have,” he said. “It could be five million. It could be fifty million. We don’t know yet.” Infante said the damages were a secondary outcome for wineries in the case. “This was really about being able to operate their businesses without draconian oversight from Peninsula Township,” he said.

UPDATE: After publication of this story, Peninsula Township released the following statement: "We acknowledge the ruling issued by Judge Maloney on July 7, 2025 in the Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula lawsuit. The Township and its attorneys are carefully evaluating the findings and damages calculations arrived at by the Court. In our view, the ruling reflects significant legal and factual issues that warrant serious scrutiny. We are actively reviewing the order and its underlying rationale. Based on our preliminary review, we believe there are substantial grounds for appeal. We are weighing all available remedies and expect to make a determination in short order."