Supreme Court agrees to weigh federal ban on home distilling
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether a federal ban on distilling spirits at home is constitutional, the Washington Post, Reason and JURIST reported. A lower court struck down the nearly 160-year-old law, while another upheld it. The case will probably be argued early next year.
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to review whether a nearly 160-year-old federal ban on distilling spirits at home is constitutional, the Washington Post, Reason's Volokh Conspiracy and JURIST reported. The case is Department of Justice v. McNutt.
The restrictions date to 1866, when Congress sought to combat widespread evasion of alcohol taxes, JURIST reported. The case asks whether banning the production of distilled spirits in homes and nearby sheds or yards is a valid use of Congress's power under the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause to carry out its taxing power, JURIST reported.
Scott McNutt of Robbinsville, New Jersey, argues that the ban is unconstitutional, the Washington Post reported. He owns a still he used to make fuel alcohol and wants to "tinker around" with making spirits at home, the Post reported. A group of would-be home distillers and the Hobby Distillers Association challenged the restrictions in federal court in Texas, JURIST reported.
The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the challengers in April, reasoning that the law reduces taxable activity instead of helping raise revenue, the Post reported. The 6th Circuit upheld the ban in a separate case, creating a split that the justices can now resolve, JURIST and Reason reported.
The government says the law steers distilling to places where it is harder to evade taxes. Home distillers "can more easily conceal a distilling operation or thwart necessary inspections," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote, the Post reported. The Justice Department says courts should defer to Congress's judgment about how to protect revenue, JURIST reported.
Law professor Ilya Somin, writing at the Volokh Conspiracy, said the case is likely to be the most important Necessary and Proper Clause case since 2012, and that he hopes the court strikes the law down, Reason reported.
The case will probably be argued early next year, the Post reported. Monday's order does not decide whether the ban is constitutional, JURIST reported.
What we know: The Supreme Court will hear the government's appeal over the federal home-distilling ban.
What we don't: When the case will be argued and how the justices will rule.
Where outlets agree The Washington Post, Reason and JURIST report that the Supreme Court agreed Monday to review the federal ban on home distilling after appeals courts split.
Where they differ The outlets cited here report the same key facts so far.