You can brew beer in your garage. You can make wine in your basement. But run a small still in your own home, and Washington says you could face five years in federal prison and a $10,000 fine.
On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether that’s constitutional.
The case is Department of Justice v. McNutt. It pits the federal government against the Hobby Distillers Association, a nonprofit whose members simply want to make spirits at home, and against a law Congress passed in 1868.
A Reconstruction-era rule still on the books
The law bars distilling spirits “in any dwelling house, in any shed, yard, or inclosure connected with any dwelling house,” Townhall reported. A separate provision makes possessing a still for producing spirits a felony.
Congress wrote the ban during Reconstruction as part of a crackdown on tax evasion, according to Axios and Townhall. The theory was that home stills were hard to inspect and easy to hide.
That theory hasn’t aged well. Axios noted that Americans can legally brew beer and make wine at home. Some states, such as West Virginia, allow some home distilling, but state law can’t override the federal ban.
And Washington still enforces it. CNN reported that the Treasury Department’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau sent one association member a letter threatening a $500,000 fine, according to Townhall.
Hobbyists won in the 5th Circuit
The association sued in 2023 in federal court in Texas. A district court in Fort Worth found the ban unconstitutional, and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed on April 10.
The 5th Circuit said Congress can tax liquor, but a ban on home distilling raises no revenue at all, SCOTUSblog reported. The court also rejected the idea that Congress can outlaw an activity just because it might lead to tax evasion. That logic, the judges wrote, “places no limit whatsoever on Congress’s power under the taxation clause.”
The 6th Circuit ruled the other way in a separate case brought by John Ream, a retired aerospace engineer and brewery owner. It held that the ban is a necessary and proper way to protect liquor tax collections. Those opposite rulings set up the fight now headed to the Supreme Court.
The association agreed the Court should take the case. It said the dispute “presents fundamental questions of the extent of federal power and the powers reserved to the states and the people.”
The Justice Department, which appealed the 5th Circuit ruling, argues that “a distiller can more easily conceal a distilling operation,” making tax evasion easier. Axios also noted that distilling can carry fire and contamination risks.
Even a win wouldn’t mean a free-for-all. Federal permits, registration and taxes would still apply, and states could pass their own bans, Axios reported. Arguments are likely early next year, with a decision by late June or early July.
The bottom line
This is what federal overreach looks like when nobody bothers to clean up after it. A law written for 1868 still lets Washington threaten a hobbyist with prison for doing in his kitchen what his neighbor can legally do with hops and grapes.
The 5th Circuit got it right. If Congress can ban anything that might someday make a tax harder to collect, then there’s nothing it can’t ban. The Constitution gave Washington limited, listed powers for a reason.
Making something with your own hands in your own home is about as American as it gets. It’s time the law caught up.