Home distilling ban struck

A federal appeals court on April 10 struck down the federal ban on making distilled spirits at home, ruling Congress went too far in a law dating to 1868. (ca5.uscourts.gov) The decision came from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in *McNutt v. U.S. Department of Justice*, a case brought by the Hobby Distillers Association and four members. The panel said the ban could not be justified under Congress’s taxing power or the Necessary and Proper Clause. (ca5.uscourts.gov) Judge Edith Hollan Jones wrote for the three-judge panel, which affirmed part of a July 2024 ruling by United States District Judge Mark Pittman in Fort Worth. Reuters reported the federal law exposed violators to as much as five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. (ca5.uscourts.gov) (usnews.com) The ruling changes federal law for spirits, not for all alcohol. Federal law has long allowed limited home production of beer and wine for personal or family use, while distilled spirits stayed under a separate ban tied to federal excise taxes and registered distilleries. (ca5.uscourts.gov) (ttb.gov) That split is why the case drew attention beyond hobbyists. Home brewing and home winemaking have been legal for decades under federal law, but a person who wanted to make whiskey, rum, or vodka at home still faced criminal penalties before this ruling. (ttb.gov) (usnews.com) The Fifth Circuit said the 1868 ban was enacted as part of Reconstruction-era tax legislation on distilled spirits and tobacco. The court said banning home distilling outright was not a proper way to collect taxes because it stopped production instead of taxing it. (ca5.uscourts.gov) The plaintiffs were not asking to open commercial distilleries. The opinion says Rick Morris wanted to distill bourbon at home, and Scott McNutt already distilled alcohol under a fuel-producer permit but wanted to make beverage spirits for personal use. (ca5.uscourts.gov) The federal government argued the ban helped prevent tax evasion in a product that is heavily taxed and regulated. The court rejected that theory, warning that the same logic could let Congress criminalize other in-home activity simply because tax collectors might not see it. (ca5.uscourts.gov) (usnews.com) The ruling does not automatically make home distilling legal everywhere in the United States. State laws still apply, and the Fifth Circuit’s decisions are binding in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi unless the full court or the Supreme Court steps in. (ca5.uscourts.gov) (uscourts.gov) The Justice Department had no immediate comment to Reuters after the decision. For now, the case leaves a 158-year-old federal restriction broken in one appellate circuit, while the broader fight over who can make spirits at home is likely headed to the next round. (usnews.com)