Home · Politics · Oct 19 archive
Supreme Court to Review 1868 Ban on Home Distilling
Confirmed
In Short: The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will review the constitutionality of a federal ban on home distilling of liquor, which dates back to 1868.
The dispute was brought by the Hobby Distillers Association and one of its members who argued that the ban exceeds Congress's power under the Taxation and Necessary and Proper Clauses of the Constitution.
The ban prohibits individuals from producing distilled spirits at home for personal use, with violators facing criminal penalties, including fines of up to $10,000 and up to five years in prison.
The case stems from a lawsuit filed by John Ream and Rick Morris, who manufacture stills for home use, after being told by the federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau that they could not obtain a license to distill at home.
The federal district court initially sided with the plaintiffs, finding the ban unconstitutional, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld most of the decision, arguing that the restrictions reduce revenue by barring people from making distilled spirits that could be taxed.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that the ban criminalizes conduct not subject to the tax and does not 'touch the product to be taxed.'
The Trump administration defends the ban under the Constitution's 'necessary and proper' clause, but the court chose not to review this justification.
The Supreme Court's decision will clarify whether Congress can criminalize home distilling to protect tax revenue.
For decades, people have been able to make wine and beer at home for personal use without penalties, but the ban on home distilling has persisted.
What this adds
The Supreme Court's review will address the conflicting rulings by federal appeals courts on the constitutionality of the home distilling ban.
The case involves multiple plaintiffs, including Scott McNutt, who has a still at home used for distilling fuel alcohol.
Background
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that turn on questions of U.S. constitutional or federal law.
What's confirmed
- They sued in Texas after being told by the federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, part of the Treasury Department, that they could not obtain a license to distill at home because of the federal ban.
- In a separate challenge brought in Ohio, another would-be home distiller, John Ream, raised similar claims.
What's still developing
- October 19, 2026 / 9:52 AM EDT / CBS News Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday said it will consider the constitutionality of a nearly 160-year-old federal ban on distilling liquor at home.
- "there is no limit to the government's claim of power to criminalize local conduct that might conceal taxable activity."
- "because a distiller can more easily conceal a distilling operation or thwart necessary inspections — thereby evading the requisite tax — if the still is located in a dwelling-house or connected structure."
- The 5th Circuit said that upholding the ban would let Congress "criminalize nearly any at-home conduct only because it has the possibility of concealing taxable activity."
- The legislation that ultimately would prohibit home distilling cut the tax rate and required the duties to be paid before the spirits were removed from warehouses.
- Lawmakers determined that "at least seven-eights" of spirits went untaxed at the time.
- John Sauer argued that the lower court decision striking down the ban is "erroneous."
- Under the law at issue in the case, enacted in 1868, a "person may not produce distilled spirits at home for personal use." Any person who uses or possesses stills or other equipment to produce distilled spirits in "any dwelling house" or shed, yard or enclosure faces criminal penalties.
- The violator's home and property within it are also subject to forfeiture.
- For more than a century, Congress has limited the location of distilling to prevent tax evasion.
- At that time, the tax rate for spirits was $2 per gallon, more than their market price, and commercial distillers found it cheaper to bribe revenue officers than pay the tax, according to a House report from 1867.
- Although interest in the home distilling of hooch has continued despite the 150-year old ban, advocates hope the court will remove the threat of criminal sanctions, which can include a fine of up to $10,000 and a maximum sentence of five years in prison.