Making whiskey at home could land you in prison, but Supreme Court may change that
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a 150-year-old federal law that prohibits home distilling of whiskey, which could carry penalties of up to five years in prison.
While Americans can legally brew beer and make wine at home, producing even small amounts of whiskey could result in federal prosecution. The Supreme Court's decision to review this Reconstruction-era restriction, dating back to 1868, carries implications that extend far beyond personal liquor cabinets.
Legal Battle
The case centers on John Ream, an Ohio brewery owner and former aerospace engineer who wants to distill small quantities of spirits at home for personal use. Under current federal law, home distillation can carry penalties of up to five years in prison, a $10,000 fine, and possible property forfeiture.
What this case boils down to is what is the scope of congressional power?
Conflicting Courts
Two federal appeals courts reached different conclusions earlier this year. The Fifth Circuit struck down the restriction, finding that Congress' taxing authority didn't justify the prohibition. The Sixth Circuit upheld the law, concluding it was a permissible means of enforcing federal liquor taxes.
The Department of Justice maintains the restriction is legitimate for preventing tax evasion and protecting federal revenue, though they declined to comment on the case.
Historical Context
Home distilling has deep American roots, with even President George Washington participating in the practice. The Buckeye Institute's Robert Alt argues that allowing Congress to prohibit home distilling under its taxing authority could set a troubling precedent for other private activities like gardening or working on cars.
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.
Next Steps
The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled oral arguments, but Alt anticipates they will occur in late February or early March, with a decision potentially arriving by the end of June. If the Court rules in favor of the federal government, the restriction would remain in place, though Congress could still amend the law.
Alt noted his clients would be willing to pay applicable taxes on spirits produced at home, arguing that taxation shouldn't require an outright prohibition of the activity.
Related
