Supreme Court to Decide if Home Distilling Ban Stands

Clear Facts

• Americans can legally brew beer and make wine at home but face up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine for producing even small amounts of distilled spirits.
• The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the 1868 federal law prohibiting home distilling in a case that challenges Congress’ authority to ban private activity under its taxing power.
• Two federal appeals courts reached opposite conclusions on the law, with the Fifth Circuit striking it down and the Sixth Circuit upholding it.

The Supreme Court will soon decide whether a 150-year-old federal law banning Americans from distilling spirits at home remains constitutional.

The justices agreed Monday to review the Reconstruction-era restriction originally enacted to prevent liquor tax evasion.

Robert Alt, president and CEO of the Ohio-based Buckeye Institute representing the challengers, described the case as a significant opportunity.

“This is a real opportunity for both whiskey and freedom,” Alt said.

John Ream, an Ohio brewery owner and former aerospace engineer, is among those challenging the prohibition.

Ream seeks to distill small quantities of spirits at home for personal use.

Under current federal law, home distilling can result in penalties including up to five years in prison, a $10,000 fine, and property forfeiture.

The case questions whether Congress’ constitutional authority to collect taxes extends to prohibiting lawful private activities within a person’s home.

“What this case boils down to is what is the scope of congressional power?” Alt said.

The Fifth Circuit struck down the restriction, finding that Congress’ taxing authority did not justify the prohibition.

The Sixth Circuit upheld the law as a permissible means of enforcing federal liquor taxes.

The Department of Justice maintains that the restriction prevents tax evasion and protects federal revenue.

Alt warns that allowing Congress to prohibit home distilling under taxing authority could create a precedent for restricting other private activities.

He cited hobbies such as gardening and working on cars as examples that could face similar restrictions under the government’s reasoning.

Alt also noted that home distilling has deep American roots, including President George Washington.

“The founders would be rolling over in their graves at the suggestion that Congress had the authority to ban and make a felony out of this very American activity,” Alt said.

A ruling favoring the federal government would leave the restriction in place, though Congress could still amend the law.

Alt said his clients would be willing to pay applicable taxes on home-produced spirits, arguing that taxation should not require an outright prohibition.

Oral arguments are expected in late February or early March, with a decision possible by the end of June.

Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.