WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether the federal government can legally prohibit Americans from distilling liquor inside their homes, stepping into a constitutional battle over a statute first enacted after the Civil War.
The justices took up an appeal brought by the Trump administration after federal appeals courts split over the nearly 160-year-old ban. The outcome will determine whether hobbyists can craft small batches of whiskey, gin and other spirits in personal dwellings without facing the threat of criminal prosecution, steep fines and property forfeiture.
A Civil War-era measure meets modern hobbyists
While federal regulations have permitted people to brew beer and make wine at home for personal consumption for decades, the production of distilled spirits remains strictly banned. Congress barred the practice in 1868 following the American Civil War, aiming to curb widespread tax evasion on alcohol. Commercial distillers at the time routinely bribed tax collectors rather than pay steep federal duties, according to historical congressional reports.
Under the contested law, distilling spirits inside any dwelling house, yard or connected enclosure is a crime. Violators face up to five years in federal prison and criminal fines of up to $10,000, while their residences and distilling gear can be seized through government forfeiture.
The current legal challenge arose after the Hobby Distillers Association and several members sued federal officials in Texas. They took legal action after the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau denied home permits, NBC News reported. In that case, known as Department of Justice v. McNutt, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the ban unconstitutional, concluding Congress lacked the power under the necessary and proper clause to penalize localized private activity that produces no taxable revenue.
Days later, the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached the opposite conclusion in a separate challenge filed by Ohio engineer John Ream. The 6th Circuit affirmed the statute, calling it a valid tool to collect excise taxes and emphasizing that alcohol regulations present unique enforcement challenges.
Clashing constitutional arguments
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the Justice Department, argued in court filings that lawmakers acted within their constitutional taxing authority. Sauer wrote that lawmakers barred home distilling because someone operating inside a private home could easily conceal equipment and dodge official inspections, CBS News reported.
Government attorneys noted that distilled-spirits excise taxes generate billions of dollars annually, including $6 billion collected in 2024, CNN reported. The administration argued the location ban remains vital to preserving that revenue stream.
Attorneys for the distillers, backed by The Buckeye Institute, counter that the federal statute oversteps congressional power under the Constitution. They argue that if lawmakers can criminalize noncommercial at-home pastimes simply because they might disguise untaxed products, the government could theoretically outlaw other domestic work like baking or sewing under the guise of tax enforcement.
Attorneys general from 15 Republican-led states submitted a brief urging the justices to resolve the disagreement between the circuits, Reuters reported. The state officials observed in their filing that the division between appellate courts would not improve with age.
Even if the challengers prevail before the nation’s highest court, home distillers would still need to register their stills and satisfy federal excise taxes on what they produce, NBC News reported. Several states, such as West Virginia, have recently moved to legalize home distilling under state statutes, though federal prohibitions have continued to supersede state enactments.
Oral arguments are expected to take place early next year, with the justices anticipated to issue a ruling by the end of June or early July.
