The Supreme Court will decide whether Washington can make it a crime to distill liquor in your own home, after a federal appeals court struck down the 158-year-old ban.
Story Snapshot
- The justices agreed to hear the Justice Department’s appeal of a Fifth Circuit ruling that struck down the federal ban on distilling at home.
- The appeals court ruled the ban does not help collect the liquor tax; it shrinks it, by stopping the distilling that would be taxed.
- The law bars distilling “in any dwelling house” or in any shed, yard or enclosure connected to one.
- Arguments have not been set, and a decision is not expected until 2027.
What the Supreme Court Took Up and Why It Matters
In its order list on Monday, October 19, the Supreme Court said it will hear Department of Justice v. McNutt. The question is whether the home-distilling ban is “necessary and proper” for collecting federal taxes. The Necessary and Proper Clause is the part of the Constitution that lets Congress pass laws needed to carry out the powers the Constitution lists, such as the power to tax. The case went up because the Fifth Circuit, the federal appeals court for Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, struck the ban down and the Justice Department appealed.
The ban dates to July 1868, when Congress was fighting widespread whiskey-tax cheating during Reconstruction. It has changed little since. Breaking it is a federal felony that can bring up to five years in prison. The rule is a bright line: no still in the house, the yard or the shed out back, whether or not anyone plans to sell a drop. That breadth is why the fight is about how far federal tax power can reach, not about liquor itself.
The Fifth Circuit’s Ruling and the Split Among Courts
In April, a three-judge Fifth Circuit panel agreed with a 2024 trial-court ruling from Fort Worth, Texas. The panel found the ban raises no revenue. It simply prohibits and punishes distilling, and by stopping production it reduces the tax the government collects. That, the court ruled, is not a proper way to use the taxing power. The ruling blocked enforcement only against Scott McNutt and members of the Hobby Distillers Association, a nonprofit group of home distillers that sued alongside him.
McNutt is an association member. In 2014, the federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, the Treasury office that collects liquor taxes, sent him a warning after he bought equipment that could be used to make spirits for his own use. The notice warned of up to $500,000 in fines and five years in prison. The Sixth Circuit, the appeals court over Ohio, came out the other way in a case brought by John Ream, an Ohio man and former home brewer. That conflict means the same federal law reads one way in Texas and the opposite way in Ohio.
What the Government Argues Under the Necessary and Proper Clause
The Justice Department says Congress has taxed spirits since the First Congress, and that home stills are easy to hide from inspectors. It argues the location ban is a useful tool for collecting that tax, and that courts should not second-guess Congress’s judgment that better collection from licensed distillers makes up for the tax lost when hobbyists stop distilling.
The department also says the ban grew out of a long record of tax evasion, so upholding it would not open the door to laws reaching other conduct inside the home. It argues the Fifth Circuit broke from Supreme Court precedent. The case turns on how closely a flat ban on home stills serves the job of collecting a tax.
Why Conservatives Should Watch This Case Closely
The core issue is federal reach into private homes. The Constitution gives Congress the power to tax, not a blank check to police quiet, noncommercial activity under a family’s own roof. The Fifth Circuit ruled that line was crossed here. If the Supreme Court agrees, it will set a real limit on what Washington can forbid inside a home in the name of tax collection.
If the justices side with the government, they could bless broader bans whenever Congress ties them to tax enforcement. Licensing, record-keeping and inspection already exist for distillers who sell. The question is whether a total ban on home stills is truly needed on top of them. The answer will shape how far federal tax rules may follow Americans through their own front doors.
Sources:
washingtontimes.com, supremecourt.report, courthousenews.com, thetimes-tribune.com, scotusblog.com, thehill.com, congress.gov
