SCOTUS takes on 158-year-old backyard liquor ban

Conflicting appeals court rulings leave the lawfulness of home liquor distilling to mean two different things in Texas and Ohio, setting up a high court showdown over a century-old law.WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court added hard liquor to the docket Monday, agreeing to review a federal law that has prohibited backyard distilling for over 150 years.A former aerospace engineer in Ohio and hobby distillers in Texas challenged the 1868 law, claiming it unconstitutionally criminalizes local conduct under the guise of Congress’ taxing authority.The home-distilling prohibition was enacted to crack down on commercial distillers’ tax evasion during Congress’ 1868 reform of the distilled spirits tax. It remains in place today, barring individuals from producing distilled spirits at home for personal use. And violations are punishable by criminal fines, imprisonment and potentially the forfeiture of a violator’s home.In 2014, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau sent Scott McNutt, a member of the Hobby Distillers Association, a liability notice based on his purchase of equipment that could be used to produce distilled spirits for personal use. The bureau warned McNutt could face $500,000 in fines and up to five years of imprisonment for any unlawful production.McNutt, the Hobby Distillers Association and several of its other members sued, claiming the home-distilling prohibition exceeds Congress’ enumerated powers. Two lower courts, including the Fifth Circuit, declared the law unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement against McNutt and the association’s other members.The Sixth Circuit came to the opposite conclusion in John Ream’s challenge to the prohibition out of Ohio. Ream filed suit to distill whiskey for his and his wife’s personal consumption, but a court held he lacked standing because he had not yet purchased a still.Ream asked the Supreme Court to review the Sixth Circuit’s ruling, and the federal government asked the justices to review the Fifth Circuit’s decision.“Two courts of appeals considered the same provisions, against the same constitutional challenge, on materially identical facts, within eleven days of each other — and issued opposite judgments,” Ream wrote. “The result is that federal criminal law on distilling now means one thing in Texas and the opposite in Ohio; that members of the associational plaintiff in McNutt may distill at home under the protection of an injunction while their neighbors risk prison for identical conduct; and that this disuniformity in the criminal law of the United States will persist until this court acts.”But the Supreme Court decided to review McNutt’s case instead, which stemmed from the Department of Justice’s challenge to the Fifth Circuit’s decision.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads