Supreme Court Agrees to Review Home Distilling Ban

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to review a Reconstruction-era ban on distilling spirits in private homes.

The court will consider whether Congress had the constitutional authority to impose the 1868 ban. Federal law makes home distilling a crime punishable by a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine, with violators' homes and property also subject to forfeiture. Plaintiffs, including the Texas-based Hobby Distillers Association and Ohio brewpub owner John Ream, claim the law is an antiquated relic of Reconstruction-era politics.

They argue Congress overstepped its taxation powers when enacting the ban as part of a tax reform measure to curb fraud by commercial distillers. Ream wants to distill whisky at home for personal consumption. Government attorneys, including Solicitor General D. John Sauer, counter that Congress properly restricted distilling locations to prevent producers from evading federal excise taxes.

Sauer argued that home distilleries are difficult to monitor, making the prohibition a legitimate means of protecting federal tax collections. He warned that lifting the ban would violate Supreme Court precedent and erode congressional powers. The government collected $6.8 billion from distilled spirits taxes in fiscal year 2023. Separate challenges to the law divided two federal circuit courts in April, with conflicting decisions 11 days apart.

A Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled in favor of the Hobby Distillers Association, concluding the ban is outside Congress' taxing power. A Sixth U.S. The Supreme Court agreed to review the Fifth Circuit decision, which was the Justice Department's preference. Arguments in the case, Department of Justice v. McNutt, will likely take place next year, with a decision by late June or early July. Fifteen Republican-led states, including Ohio, Florida, and Idaho, backed the challengers.