Supreme Court to review 1868 ban on home distilling

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a nearly 160-year-old federal ban on distilling whiskey and other spirits at home is constitutional. The court declined a conservative group's invitation to use the case to revisit a past decision that affirmed a broad interpretation of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. Instead, the justices will review a lower court ruling that sided with would-be home distillers in Texas challenging the law.

Historical Context and Legal Challenge

To help pay for the Revolutionary War, Congress taxed distilled spirits, the first nationwide internal revenue tax. This measure was unpopular and led to the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. In defending the current ban, the Department of Justice points out that the tax was regularly evaded. This eventually led to laws in 1866 and 1868 prohibiting home stills, which were difficult for government inspectors to find. Before the ban, at least seven-eighths of all spirits made in the country were not being taxed, according to the government.

Today, the tax generates billions of dollars in annual revenue. Home distillers can be fined $10,000 for every batch and imprisoned for up to five years. The case pits the administration, which is defending the law, against challengers who argue that the home-distilling prohibition exceeds the authority of Congress under the US Constitution. More than a dozen Republican-led states have backed the legal challenge to the statute.

Conflicting Lower Court Rulings

In April, two appeals courts issued contradictory rulings about the legality of the restriction. The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law under the clause of the Constitution that allows Congress to pass laws that are "necessary and proper" to carry out its assigned duties. The ban, the court said, was needed to collect taxes when it was passed, "and we have no reason to conclude otherwise now." When it comes to "liquor and taxes alike," the court said, "human nature remains decidedly unchanged."

However, the Louisiana-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the ban isn't "necessary and proper" for tax collection because it actually reduces revenue by prohibiting the conduct the government wants to tax. The 5th Circuit ruling was a legal victory for the nonprofit Hobby Distillers Association and 4 of its 1,300 members. Attorneys general from 15 Republican-led states, including Ohio, Florida and Idaho, filed a Supreme Court brief backing the challengers. "Unlike a good whiskey," the attorneys general wrote, "this split will not age well."

Arguments from Both Sides

Andrew Grossman, a senior legal fellow at The Buckeye Institute, which is representing the challengers, said the case is about individual liberty. "It's ultimately to protect individual liberty," Grossman said. "Home distilling is just an example of that."

The Distilled Spirits Council, a trade association for the producers and marketers of distilled spirits, issued a warning about the dangers of distillation, including the risk of explosion and fires. A faulty product can cause blindness or death. "In light of these very serious risks, we implore officials to think carefully before legalizing these activities and if they choose to do so there should also be very stringent regulations to protect the community," Courtney Armour, the chief legal officer for the Distilled Spirits Council, said in a statement.

The Justice Department emphasized the importance of protecting federal revenue. "Congress restricted home distilling 160 years ago in response to an extensive history of evasion of the distilled-spirits tax," Justice Department lawyers wrote. "The government has a substantial interest in its authority to safeguard a significant source of tax revenue — a source that was used to pay Revolutionary War debts at the founding (of the nation) and now generates billions of dollars in tax revenue every year," they wrote.

Why it matters

The case is expected to be argued next year with a decision issued by the end of June. The outcome will resolve a split between the circuit courts of appeals regarding the application of the "necessary and proper" clause to federal tax enforcement. The challengers include John Ream, an Ohio engineer who crafts his own wine and mead, and Rick Morris, who started the Hobby Distillers Association in 2013. Morris said making distilled spirits feels like the natural next step to many hobbyists. "I think the same group of enthusiasts that make beer and make wine ‒ it's those same things that drive people to want to be able to go to that next level and distill," Morris said.

---

Sources

• yahoo.com: Supreme Court will review decades-old ban on distilling liquor at home
• devdiscourse.com: US Supreme Court to review 1868 federal ban on home distilling of liquor | International

This article was drafted with AI assistance and checked against the sources above. Company claims are reported as claims. Cover image is AI-generated.