US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

[1srelluc]

April 10 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Friday declared unconstitutional a nearly 158-year-old federal ban on home distilling, calling it an unnecessary and improper means for Congress to exercise its power to tax.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of ‌Appeals in New Orleans ruled in favor of the nonprofit Hobby Distillers Association and four of its 1,300 members.

They argued that people should be free to distill spirits at home, whether as a hobby or for personal consumption including, in one instance, to create an apple-pie-vodka recipe.

The ban was part of a law passed during ⁠Reconstruction in July 1868, in part to thwart liquor tax evasion, and subjected violators to up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Writing for a three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Edith Hollan Jones said the ban actually reduced tax revenue by preventing distilling in the first place, unlike laws that regulated the manufacture and labeling of distilled spirits on which the government could collect taxes.

She also said that under the government's logic, Congress could criminalize virtually any in-home activity that might escape notice from tax collectors, including remote work and ‌home-based ⁠businesses.

"Without any limiting principle, the government’s theory would violate this court’s obligation to read the Constitution carefully to avoid creating a general federal authority akin to the police power," Jones wrote.

The U.S. Department of Justice had no immediate comment. Another defendant, the Treasury Department's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and ⁠Trade Bureau, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Devin Watkins, a lawyer representing the Hobby Distillers Association, in an interview called the ruling an important decision about the limits of federal power.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-appeals-court-declares-158-year-old-home-distilling-ban-unconstitutional-2026-04-10/

I've never understood how the ban has been upheld this long. Seems so simple to me.

Just goes to show how, once a law is in place, how hard it is to get shed of.

 

[airplanemechanic]

April 10 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Friday declared unconstitutional a nearly 158-year-old federal ban on home distilling, calling it an unnecessary and improper means for Congress to exercise its power to tax.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of ‌Appeals in New Orleans ruled in favor of the nonprofit Hobby Distillers Association and four of its 1,300 members.

They argued that people should be free to distill spirits at home, whether as a hobby or for personal consumption including, in one instance, to create an apple-pie-vodka recipe.

The ban was part of a law passed during ⁠Reconstruction in July 1868, in part to thwart liquor tax evasion, and subjected violators to up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Writing for a three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Edith Hollan Jones said the ban actually reduced tax revenue by preventing distilling in the first place, unlike laws that regulated the manufacture and labeling of distilled spirits on which the government could collect taxes.

She also said that under the government's logic, Congress could criminalize virtually any in-home activity that might escape notice from tax collectors, including remote work and ‌home-based ⁠businesses.

"Without any limiting principle, the government’s theory would violate this court’s obligation to read the Constitution carefully to avoid creating a general federal authority akin to the police power," Jones wrote.

The U.S. Department of Justice had no immediate comment. Another defendant, the Treasury Department's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and ⁠Trade Bureau, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Devin Watkins, a lawyer representing the Hobby Distillers Association, in an interview called the ruling an important decision about the limits of federal power.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-appeals-court-declares-158-year-old-home-distilling-ban-unconstitutional-2026-04-10/

I've never understood how the ban has been upheld this long. Seems so simple to me.

Just goes to show how, once a law is in place, how hard it is to get shed of.

A $10,000 fine in 1868? DAYUM. That's equal to $232,000 dollars today.

 

[sparky]

They argued that people should be free to distill spirits at home

so just maybe i'm no longer an outlaw???

~S~

 

[pknopp]

Cool. Good to see.

 

[riseabovethis]

I wish they'd rescind that Atlanta Giraffe law. I'm tired of leaving mine at home

 

[EdwinAMartin]

During Prohibition a person was allowed to make their own booze at home; you could buy the kits and supplies at any store. Budweiser sold them, and the grape industry in California boomed during prohibition from the sale of wine making supplies. The limit was many gallons, don't recall howe many at the moment.

Prohibition didn't ban booze, it banned the transportation and sale. You could fill your basement with thousands of barrels of beer and whisky, all you wanted, legally as long as you didn't sell it or transport it. Apparently, the law in the OP was ignored for may decades.

The Homebrew Market​

While Prohibition formally ended the sale of intoxicating beverages from 1920 to 1933, it inspired an explosion in homebrewing. Beer consumption increased gradually during the 1920s, climbing to about 25 percent of its pre-Prohibition rate by 1930. This homebrewing revolution was sustained with the eager assistance of merchants who sold malt extracts for “baking.”

“Before Prohibition there waslittle or no malt extract on the market. Now there is an enormous amount of baking done, according to the amount of extracts being sold,” wrote A. W. McDaniel, a Prohibition agent. Eight years after Prohibition began, more than 500 malt and hop shops prospered in New York City. Another 100,000 stores sold malt syrup nationwide, including Atlantic and Pacific (A & P), Kroger, and Piggly-Wiggly grocery stores. Prior to Prohibition only 500 to 600 shops sold malt syrup nationwide. By 1928 25,000 shops, including Woolworth’s, were selling homebrewing equipment such as bottle cappers and tubing.

Homebrewing During Prohibition - Brew Your Own

The reputation of homebrewers suffered during the Noble Experiment.

byo.com

Up to 200 gallons of wine a year was allowed to home brewers.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

A $10,000 fine in 1868? DAYUM. That's equal to $232,000 dollars today.

Liquor taxes were always a major source of Federal revenues.

 

[Jarlaxle]

During Prohibition a person was allowed to make their own booze at home; you could buy the kits and supplies at any store. Budweiser sold them, and the grape industry in California boomed during prohibition from the sale of wine making supplies. The limit was many gallons, don't recall howe many at the moment.

Prohibition didn't ban booze, it banned the transportation and sale. You could fill your basement with thousands of barrels of beer and whisky, all you wanted, legally as long as you didn't sell it or transport it. Apparently, the law in the OP was ignored for may decades.

The Homebrew Market​

While Prohibition formally ended the sale of intoxicating beverages from 1920 to 1933, it inspired an explosion in homebrewing. Beer consumption increased gradually during the 1920s, climbing to about 25 percent of its pre-Prohibition rate by 1930. This homebrewing revolution was sustained with the eager assistance of merchants who sold malt extracts for “baking.”

“Before Prohibition there waslittle or no malt extract on the market. Now there is an enormous amount of baking done, according to the amount of extracts being sold,” wrote A. W. McDaniel, a Prohibition agent. Eight years after Prohibition began, more than 500 malt and hop shops prospered in New York City. Another 100,000 stores sold malt syrup nationwide, including Atlantic and Pacific (A & P), Kroger, and Piggly-Wiggly grocery stores. Prior to Prohibition only 500 to 600 shops sold malt syrup nationwide. By 1928 25,000 shops, including Woolworth’s, were selling homebrewing equipment such as bottle cappers and tubing.

Homebrewing During Prohibition - Brew Your Own

The reputation of homebrewers suffered during the Noble Experiment.

byo.com

Up to 200 gallons of wine a year was allowed to home brewers.

Not wine, not beer, those are fermented. DISTILLATION. You do not distill wine or beer.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

Not wine, not beer, those are fermented. DISTILLATION. You do not distill wine or beer.

Where did I say distilled?

In any case, homebrewing was legalized in 1979.

Today in History February 1 | Homebrewing Legalized in the U.S. | Britannica

On February 1, 1979, U.S. President Jimmy Carter signed HR 1337, a transportation bill, which included an amendment that legalized homebrewing beer and wine.

www.britannica.com

With the stroke of a pen, U.S. Pres. Jimmy Carter transformed America’s brewing industry.

On October 14, 1978, Carter signed HR 1337, a relatively innocuous (read: boring, unless you care about excise taxes on buses) transportation bill with an interesting amendment, No. 5354, as a rider: the legalization of homebrewing of beer and wine. The new law allowed adults to brew up to 100 gallons per person (or 200 gallons per household) for personal consumption annually, and it was tacked on to the transportation bill to avoid inviting extra attention and scrutiny.


But it wasn’t until this day in 1979 that the law officially went into effect. Then it supercharged the American craft beer revolution.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Where did I say distilled?

In any case, homebrewing was legalized in 1979.

Today in History February 1 | Homebrewing Legalized in the U.S. | Britannica

On February 1, 1979, U.S. President Jimmy Carter signed HR 1337, a transportation bill, which included an amendment that legalized homebrewing beer and wine.

www.britannica.com

With the stroke of a pen, U.S. Pres. Jimmy Carter transformed America’s brewing industry.

On October 14, 1978, Carter signed HR 1337, a relatively innocuous (read: boring, unless you care about excise taxes on buses) transportation bill with an interesting amendment, No. 5354, as a rider: the legalization of homebrewing of beer and wine. The new law allowed adults to brew up to 100 gallons per person (or 200 gallons per household) for personal consumption annually, and it was tacked on to the transportation bill to avoid inviting extra attention and scrutiny.


But it wasn’t until this day in 1979 that the law officially went into effect. Then it supercharged the American craft beer revolution.

Do you have some sort of cognitive problem? Did you not read the thread title?

 

[EdwinAMartin]

Do you have some sort of cognitive problem? Did you not read the thread title?

I didn't post the OP, so it wasn't clear what you were referring to my post or not.

As I said, you could have all the whisky you wanted, as long as you didn't transport or sell it. Many people did just that, stocked up before the deadline. Joe Kennedy filled up a very large basement with it. So did W.C. Fields and Mary Pickford's mother, and many others, all legally drank and all through prohibition.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I didn't post the OP, so it wasn't clear what you were referring to my post or not.

As I said, you could have all the whisky you wanted, as long as you didn't transport or sell it. Many people did just that, stocked up before the deadline. Joe Kennedy filled up a very large basement with it. So did W.C. Fields and Mary Pickford's mother, and many others, all legally drank and all through prohibition.

You didn't read the post. You have the comprehension of a stone.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

You didn't read the post. You have the comprehension of a stone.

And you can't post clearly what you're referring to.

Try not to post drunk again.

 

[Jarlaxle]

And you can't post clearly what you're referring to.

Try not to post drunk again.

STop deflecting.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

STop deflecting.

Stop pretending I did.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Stop pretending I did.

OK, you may not be deflecting. You may just be stupid. I'll try to explain it like I would to a dull child: home BREWING is legal. There is no distillation involved, as wines and beers are fermented. This is in contrast to liquors, which must be distilled. Since 1868, distilling liquor, in and of itself, has been a crime. This is no longer the case.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

OK, you may not be deflecting. You may just be stupid. I'll try to explain it like I would to a dull child: home BREWING is legal. There is no distillation involved, as wines and beers are fermented. This is in contrast to liquors, which must be distilled. Since 1868, distilling liquor, in and of itself, has been a crime. This is no longer the case.

I'll explain to you as if you were sober: I pointed out Prohibition didn't make it illegal to make booze. And, you could drink all of the whiskey you wanted, as long as it was on your property and wasn't transported or sold.

There, I realize it may be way over your head, but that's life, and you can't handle it apparently.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I'll explain to you as if you were sober: I pointed out Prohibition didn't make it illegal to make booze. And, you could drink all of the whiskey you wanted, as long as it was on your property and wasn't transported or sold.

There, I realize it may be way over your head, but that's life, and you can't handle it apparently.

OK, I'll give it one more try: it's not "making booze," it predates Prohibition by decades. Yet again: distilling liquor, in and of itself, was a crime. Not fermenting, not making beer, not making wine, not selling anything, DISTILLING itself was a crime. Try reading the first post and the link therein.