Federal Judge Strikes Down Ban on At-Home Distilling

A federal judge in Texas has ruled that an 1868 ban on at-home distilling is unconstitutional, citing that it exceeds Congress's taxing power and violates the Commerce Clause.

A federal judge in Texas has ruled that an 1868 ban on at-home distilling is unconstitutional, delivering a victory to personal freedoms and federalism. U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, in his ruling on Wednesday, agreed with the Hobby Distillers Association's attorneys that the 156-year-old ban exceeded Congress's taxing power and violated the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause.

The Hobby Distillers Association, a group advocating for the legalization of personal production of spirits, argued that the government's regulatory reach should not extend to activities within a person's home. The association, along with four of its members, filed a lawsuit in December against the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau and the Department of Justice.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Ban on At-Home Distilling

Judge Pittman wrote in his ruling, "That is where the judiciary must declare when its coequal branches overstep their Constitutional authority. Congress has done so here." He issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the U.S. government from enforcing the ban against the Hobby Distillers Association's members.

The ban, which penalized violators with fines up to $10,000 and prison terms of five years, had been justified by the government as a measure to protect tax revenue from distilled spirits. However, Judge Pittman rejected this argument, stating that the ban "did nothing more than statutorily ferment a crime."

Federal Judge Strikes Down Ban on At-Home Distilling

"While prohibiting the possession of an at-home still meant to distill beverage alcohol might be convenient to protect tax revenue on spirits, it is not a sufficiently clear corollary to the positive power of laying and collecting taxes," he wrote.

The judge also dismissed the government's claim that the ban was a valid exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, stating that it was not a "comprehensive" scheme of regulation.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Ban on At-Home Distilling

Devin Watkins, a lawyer for the Texas-based hobby group at the libertarian think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute, welcomed the ruling, saying it "respects the rights of our clients to live under a government of limited powers."

Dan Greenberg, another Competitive Enterprise Institute lawyer, emphasized the broader implications of the decision: "More broadly, the court’s decision reminds us that, as Americans, we live under a government of limited powers."

Federal Judge Strikes Down Ban on At-Home Distilling

While three individual plaintiffs failed to prove a credible threat of facing prosecution without an injunction, Judge Pittman found that the group and one of its members, Scott McNutt, had shown they would be harmed if the ban was not blocked. McNutt had received an unsolicited letter from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau warning him of potential legal liability.

Judge Pittman's decision serves as a reminder that the government's authority is not boundless. It protects personal freedoms and affirms the principle of federalism, ensuring that the government's reach does not extend unjustly into the private sphere.