Supreme Court to review 1868 federal ban on home distilling of spirits

On October 19, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide whether an 1868 federal ban on home distilling of spirits is constitutional. The Trump administration argues the prohibition is necessary under Congress's taxing power to prevent excise tax evasion, which generates billions annually. Challengers, including the Hobby Distillers Association, contend Congress exceeded its authority. The court's decision will resolve a split between the 5th and 6th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals.

Supreme Court agrees to review distilling ban

• ▪The U.S. Supreme Court declined a request to revisit legal precedent regarding Congress's interstate commerce powers, limiting its review to the federal home distilling statute
• ▪On October 19, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the Trump administration's appeal of a lower court decision striking down an 1868 federal law prohibiting home distilling of alcoholic spirits

Circuit courts split over federal ban

• ▪In April 2026, the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 1868 federal home distilling ban challenged by John Ream as a constitutional exercise of congressional authority
• ▪Attorneys general from 15 Republican-led states filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the circuit court split between the 5th and 6th Circuits on home distilling
• ▪In April 2026, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 1868 federal prohibition on home distilling is unconstitutional

Plaintiffs challenge federal taxing power

• ▪The legal challenges against the 1868 federal home distilling ban were filed by the Texas-based Hobby Distillers Association, individual home distillers, and Ohio engineer John Ream
• ▪Plaintiffs challenging the 1868 statute contend that Congress exceeded its constitutional taxing power because personal home distilling produces no taxable revenue

Arguments over the necessary and proper clause

• ▪The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that alcohol carries unique tax evasion risks that justify federal home distilling restrictions under the Necessary and Proper Clause
• ▪Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that Congress's authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause allows prohibiting home distilling to prevent tax evasion and protect federal excise revenues
• ▪The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that using tax authority to ban home distilling is not necessary and proper, warning it could justify federal bans on home activities like remote work

Prohibitions and Penalties for home distilling

• ▪Violations of the federal home distilling ban carry criminal penalties including up to five years in prison, fines up to $10,000, and potential property forfeiture
• ▪Federal law prohibits the manufacturing of distilled spirits in any dwelling house, shed, yard, or connected structure

Home distilling laws

• ▪If the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the 1868 federal ban on home distilling, home distillers will still be required to register their stills and pay federal excise taxes on distilled spirits
• ▪West Virginia legalized home distilling at the state level in 2024, despite the federal ban remaining in effect nationwide

Federal excise taxes on spirits

• ▪Congress first enacted excise taxes on distilled spirits as the nation's first internal revenue tax to help pay debts from the Revolutionary War
• ▪Federal excise taxes levied on distilled spirits generated $6 billion in revenue for the U.S. government in 2024