The plaintiffs — including John Ream, an Ohio brewpub owner who wants to distill whisky for personal use, and members of the Texas-based Hobby Distillers Association — argue that Congress overstepped its constitutional taxation powers when it enacted the ban. They say the 1868 law is an antiquated relic of Reconstruction-era politics, designed to curb fraud by commercial distillers, not to regulate private homes.
In a statement, plaintiffs' attorney Robert Alt said they are “thrilled” that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. “Our country’s foundrs would be rolling over in their graves to learn that a pastime in which even George Washington partook, which is as American as apple pie and certainly a lot older, has quite absurdly been turned into a federal crime,” Alt said.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote that the case “presents fundamental questions of the extent of federal power and the powers reserved to the states and the people.” They warn that under the government’s interpretation, Congress could ban a broad array of activities inside private homes, including cooking, gardning and remote work.
Government attorneys counter that Congress properly restricted where spirits can be distilled to prevent producers from evading federal excise taxes. They note that Congress outlawed home distilling only after “lengthy experience with tax evasion” and argue that upholding the location restrictions “would not open the door to hypothetical laws restricting other conduct lacking that history.” The Justice Department warned that lifting the ban would violate Supreme Court precedent and erode congressional powers.
The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the federal ban in Ream's case, while a Fifth Circuit panel ruled in favor of the Hobby Distillers Association, concluding that the statutory prohibitions on in-home distilling are outside the scope of Congress’s taxing power. The Supreme Court agreed to review the Fifth Circuit decision, which was the Justice Department’s preference.