Posted on 10/19/2026 11:46:52 AM PDT by Red Badger
The Supreme Court has agreed to weigh in on the constitutionality of an 1868 federal law that imposes a tax on distilled spirits but also bans home distilleries – that is, the at-home production of spirits like bourbon and whiskey. The penalties for violating the law include fines of up to $10,000, five years in prison, or both. In a list of orders from the justices’ Oct. 16 conference, the court announced that it had granted review in Department of Justice v. McNutt.
The justices will likely hear oral argument in the case early next year, with a decision to follow by late June or early July.
The lawsuit was filed in 2023 by a nonprofit, the Hobby Distillers Association, and some of its individual members, who want to be able to operate home distilleries. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the ban on home distilleries violates two different provisions of the Constitution: the taxation clause, which gives Congress the power to “lay and collect Taxes … to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”; and the necessary and proper clause, which gives Congress the power to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” its listed powers.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose a tax on distilled spirits, the 5th Circuit determined, but it concluded that the ban on home distilleries exceeds that power. Not only does the ban not raise revenue, the court of appeals wrote, it prevents the production of spirits that could generate revenue. The court of appeals similarly rejected the government’s contention that the ban guards against tax evasion, explaining that “preventing activity lest it give rise to tax evasion places no limit whatsoever on Congress’s power under the taxation clause.”
The federal government came to the Supreme Court in August, asking the justices to weigh in. It contended that “[a] law is necessary and proper if it is ‘convenient’ or ‘useful’ for carrying an enumerated power into effect, and ‘plainly adapted’ to that legitimate end.” That is precisely what the ban on home distilleries does, the government argued. “Congress restricted home distilling 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 house or a structure attached to that house.
The challengers agreed that the court should grant review, although they urged the justices to leave the 5th Circuit’s ruling in place. The case, they said, “presents fundamental questions of the extent of federal power and the powers reserved to the states and the people.”
In a separate case, Ream v. Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reached the opposite conclusion from the 5th Circuit, holding that the ban on home distilleries is a necessary and proper exercise of Congress’s power to collect the federal tax on distilled spirits. John Ream, a retired aerospace engineer and the owner of a brewery who wants to be able to distill his own spirits, then came to the Supreme Court in July, asking the justices to weigh in on the legality of the ban and on the broader question of Congress’ power to regulate “local, noncommercial conduct.”
The federal government agreed that the justices should take up the question at the center of Ream’s petition for review, but it urged the court to grant its own petition, in McNutt, instead. On Monday, the justices did just that.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Wow!
Pretty soon Bo and Cletus will be able to come in out of the rain.
No more G-men, T-men, revenuers, too?
Congress’ initial excise tax (1792) on home distilled spirits applied only to whiskey for sale, not whiskey for home consumption.
I dont mind if Daisy gets a little wet...
Now do coffee.
muslims make theirs at home
I’ll bet there’s way more tax money being stolen than whatever the Feds could ever collect from home distilleries. Go after the stolen money.
Roscoe still rates way up there among my favorite TV characters.
Even if the court rules narrowly for "intended for home consumption" and holds the restriction un-Constitutional, it's hard to reconcile that with Wickard v. Filburn.
This is a big deal. Consider the precedent is likely to apply to making firearms at home.
AI Overview
In the classic television series The Waltons, “The Recipe” refers to a potent, homemade fruit cordial and sour mash moonshine brewed in secret by the endearing spinster sisters, Miss Mamie and Miss Emily Baldwin.
Key Details About “The Recipe”
• Origin: It was originally created by their late father, Judge Baldwin, using a special distillation machine.
• Nature and Potency: The sisters view it strictly as a medicinal tonic and a “family cordial” rather than liquor, though it frequently leaves visiting community members, sheriffs, and family members quite tipsy.
• Appearance: Over the course of the series, the liquid’s appearance varies—sometimes looking like clear gin or vodka, and other times appearing as a pale yellow or golden juice, tea, or lemonade.
• The Law: Because it was produced during Prohibition, the sisters often navigate a legal gray area, though they generally trade it for favors or share it generously rather than operating as major criminal bootleggers. Throughout the series, several shady relatives and outsiders (such as Polonius Baldwin and Cousin Homer Lee Baldwin) try to steal or profit off the secret recipe machine, but the sisters always retain control.
“Homebrew” should be legal!
A bit of a stretch, but yeah!..............👍😎
This should be an open and shut case - the feds are operating WAY outside of their legitimate authority.
If you can manufacture guns at home for your own use, then why can’t you make booze?
If you can make alcohol from grapes why not corn?
If you can make alcohol from wheat why not corn?..............
Because the fed’s back then wanted their tax money. Plus medical issues with bad homemade distilleries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.