Years ago, I bought a contraption designed to separate and concentrate the most volatile components of a liquid mixture. I would tell you what I did with it, but I don’t want to implicate myself in a federal felony.<\/p>\n

Since 1868, it has been illegal<\/a> for Americans to locate a “distilled spirits plant” in “any dwelling place,” an offense currently punishable<\/a> by a maximum $10,000 fine and up to five years in prison. The federal ban on home distilling is at the center of a case<\/a> that the Supreme Court recently agreed<\/a> to hear, which raises a specific constitutional issue but also highlights the absurdity of treating this hobby as a crime.<\/p>\n

That policy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled<\/a> last April, cannot be justified as an exercise of the federal government’s tax power. To the contrary, Judge Edith Jones said in the court’s opinion<\/a>, the ban is “an anti-revenue provision that prevents distilled spirits from coming into existence,” meaning its effect is “to reduce<\/em> revenue instead of raising it.”<\/p>\n

Nor is the provision consistent with “the Supreme Court’s explanation of how the federal power of taxation works,” Jones wrote. When Congress imposes a tax, the Court explained<\/a> in 2012, it “leaves an individual with a lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long as he is willing to pay a tax levied on that choice.” But in this case, Jones noted, would-be home distillers “have only the choice not<\/em> to do as they wish or risk fines and imprisonment.”<\/p>\n

The government argued that the ban helps collect liquor taxes by prohibiting a form of production that is difficult to detect. But “Congress cannot prohibit intrastate activity solely because it might produce products hard to tax,” Jones said. If it could, she warned, there would be “no limit whatsoever” to its tax power.<\/p>\n

Under the government’s logic, Jones noted, “Congress may criminalize nearly any at-home conduct only because it has the possibility of concealing taxable activity. Home-based businesses may be forbidden. Remote work may be deemed a crime.”<\/p>\n

The Trump administration, which wants the Supreme Court to overturn the 5th Circuit’s decision, argues<\/a> that threatening to imprison home distillers is a “necessary and proper” safeguard against tax evasion. But whatever your take on the constitutional question, that policy is morally indefensible, haphazardly enforced, and inconsistent with the federal government’s treatment of wine and beer.<\/p>\n

The lead plaintiff in this case is Scott McNutt, a member of the Hobby Distillers Association<\/a>. In 2014, McNutt received a “Notice of Potential Civil and Criminal Liability” from the Treasury Department, which said it had reason to believe he “may have purchased a still capable of producing alcohol and\/or equipment and materials that may be used in the manufacture of a still.”<\/p>\n

The notice warned that “federal law provides no exemptions for the production of distilled spirits for personal or family use.” It added that “unlawful production of distilled spirits is a criminal offense,” which it erroneously claimed was “punishable by a fine of up to $500,000” as well as “imprisonment for not more than 5 years.”<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, online retailers such as Amazon sell<\/a> a wide variety of home stills, many of which are explicitly advertised<\/a> as appliances designed to produce alcoholic beverages such as vodka, gin, brandy, and whiskey. Customers could be forgiven for assuming that’s legal, especially since federal law has long permitted home wine<\/a> and beer<\/a> production “for personal or family use.”<\/p>\n

McNutt’s lawyers say<\/a> he “owns a still that he has used to lawfully distill fuel alcohol and seeks to ‘tinker around’ with beverage spirits.” Another plaintiff, Thomas Cowdrey, “likewise seeks to experiment in creating new beverage spirits, including ‘apple pie vodka,’ for which he has developed a recipe.”<\/p>\n

Because of a law Congress enacted 158 years ago, McNutt and Cowdrey would be felons if they acted on those desires. It might be time to rethink that policy.<\/p>\n

\u00a9 Copyright 2026 by Creators Syndicate Inc.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The post A Supreme Court Case Underlines the Absurdity of the Federal Ban on Home Distilling<\/a> appeared first on Reason Magazine<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Criminalizing the hobby is morally indefensible and inconsistent with the treatment of wine and beer. …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"tdm_status":"","tdm_grid_status":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[19,9],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-132112","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-policy","7":"category-politics"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/3rdcitynews.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132112","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/3rdcitynews.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/3rdcitynews.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/3rdcitynews.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/3rdcitynews.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=132112"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/3rdcitynews.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132112\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/3rdcitynews.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132112"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/3rdcitynews.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132112"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/3rdcitynews.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132112"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}