Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Reviews 160-Year-Old Ban on Home Distilling
By Drooid · · How we work
The Court’s Upcoming Review
The Supreme Court has scheduled a review of the federal prohibition on home distilling for October 19, 2026. The Court’s order indicates that oral arguments are expected early next year, with a decision projected for late June. The case, styled *Department of Justice v. McNutt*, will determine whether Congress may criminalize the production of distilled spirits in private residences.
Historical Roots of the Ban
Congress enacted the restriction in the Act of July 20, 1868, a Reconstruction-era measure that paired excise taxes on distilled spirits with a location ban to curb rampant tax evasion.
Split in the Federal Courts
Two appellate courts have issued opposite rulings on the ban. The 5th Circuit in New Orleans held on April 10 that the prohibition exceeds Congress’s taxing authority because it does not directly raise revenue. Conversely, the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati issued an opinion on April 21 upholding the ban as a “necessary and proper” means of securing federal excise tax revenue, emphasizing the difficulty of inspecting stills hidden in homes.
Penalties at Issue
Under the statute, a violator faces a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment for up to five years, and possible forfeiture of the home and related property. The law applies to any still used to produce distilled spirits for personal consumption.
Government Position
The United States Solicitor General **D. “Faced with rampant evasion of excise taxes on distilled spirits 160 years ago, Congress enacted a number of provisions regulating ‘the manufacture and storage, [and] the marking, branding, numbering, and stamping with tax stamps, of distilled spirits,’” — General D. John Sauer
Challenger Position
The Hobby Distillers Association and individual plaintiffs—including Scott McNutt, Rick Morris, and Ohio brewpub owner John Ream— contend that the ban criminalizes a lawful, private activity and exceeds the Constitution’s Taxing and Necessary-and-Proper Clauses. Robert Alt, president and CEO of the Buckeye Institute, frames the issue as a matter of liberty, saying the founders would be “rolling over in their graves” if a pastime once practiced by George Washington remains a felony. The challengers propose that, if the ban were struck down, still owners could register their equipment and pay excise taxes without facing criminal prosecution.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Sources differ on procedural timing: some outlets note that oral arguments are slated for “early next year,” while others reference a “late-June or early-July” decision window. No source provides a definitive schedule for the arguments themselves, leaving the exact calendar open. Additionally, while the government emphasizes the tax-revenue rationale, challengers argue that existing licensing schemes already address tax collection, a point not fully explored in the appellate opinions.