U.S. Supreme Court to Review Federal Ban on Home Whiskey Distilling

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to review the federal prohibition on home distilling. The restriction dates to 1868 and was introduced to counter evasion of liquor taxes. Federal law allows penalties of up to five years in prison, a $10,000 fine and possible property forfeiture for producing distilled spirits at home. Americans may legally make beer and wine at home, but even small quantities of whiskey can expose home distillers to federal imprisonment.

The case concerns whether Congress' constitutional power to collect taxes permits Congress to ban an otherwise lawful activity in a person's home. The ruling could affect activities beyond home distilling. Earlier this year, the Fifth Circuit invalidated the prohibition, finding that Congress' taxing power did not justify the restriction. The Sixth Circuit upheld the prohibition as an acceptable way to enforce federal liquor taxes.

The Ohio-based Buckeye Institute represents people challenging the ban. Robert Alt, the institute's president and CEO, described the Supreme Court's decision to hear the case as a significant development for home-distilling enthusiasts. Alt said, "This is a real opportunity for both whiskey and freedom."

John Ream, an Ohio brewery owner who previously worked as an aerospace engineer, is among the challengers. Ream wants to make small quantities of spirits at home for personal use.

The Department of Justice maintains that the prohibition legitimately prevents tax evasion and protects federal revenue. The department declined to comment on the case. However, Alt argues that accepting the government's interpretation of Congress' taxing power could establish a troubling precedent for other private activities. Alt cited gardening and working on cars as hobbies that could theoretically face comparable restrictions under that reasoning.

Alt said home distilling has a long history in America, including a connection to President George Washington. Alt said, "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." Alt said a ruling for the federal government would preserve the restriction, though Congress could still change the law. Alt said the challengers would pay applicable taxes on home-produced spirits and argued that taxation should not require a complete ban.

The Supreme Court has not set a date for oral arguments. Alt expects arguments in late February or early March. Alt said a decision could come by the end of June.