The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear a case regarding whether Congress had constitutional authority over 150 years ago to prohibit the distillation of spirits in private residences.
Plaintiffs challenging this domestic distillation ban argue that the law of 1868 is an outdated remnant of post-Reconstruction politics. They believe that when Congress enacted this domestic distillation ban as part of a tax reform, it overstepped its taxing authority; the reform was intended to curb fraudulent practices by commercial distillers.
Government lawyers, on the other hand, argued that Congress has appropriately restricted the locations where strong alcoholic beverages can be distilled in order to prevent producers from evading federal consumption taxes. They warned that repealing this ban would violate precedents set by the Supreme Court and weaken the power of Congress.
Federal law stipulates that distilling alcohol at home is a crime, which can result in a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a fine of $10,000.
Two separate lawsuits surrounding this law have led to disagreements between two federal circuit courts. Both of these conflicting rulings occurred in April, and they were just 11 days apart from each other.
A panel of three judges from the U.S. Sixth Circuit of Appeals upheld the federal ban. The case was brought by John Rim (John Ream), the owner of a tavern and distillery in Newark, Ohio, who wished to distill whiskey at home for personal consumption.
A panel from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals supported another group of plaintiffs – members of the “Amateur Distillers Association” ( Hobby Distillers Association ) based in Texas – and determined that regulations prohibiting home distillation exceeded the taxing authority of Congress under the Constitution.
The Supreme Court agreed to review the ruling of the Fifth Circuit Court, which is also the outcome that the Department of Justice hoped for.
Plaintiff's lawyer, Robert Olt ( Robert Alt ), stated that the Supreme Court's agreement to accept the case is "very inspiring" for them.
“If our founding fathers knew that a pastime that even George Washington participated in – a pastime as American as apple pie, and with a much longer history – has been absurdly turned into a federal crime, they would surely toss and turn in their graves,” Ort said in a statement.
In both cases, the attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that, according to the government's interpretation of this 19th-century law, Congress could even prohibit a wide range of activities within private residences, including cooking, gardening, and telecommuting.
The plaintiff's lawyer wrote, "The importance of this case and the issues it raises cannot be overstated. It touches on fundamental questions regarding the boundaries of federal power, as well as the powers reserved for the states and the people."
Ministry of Justice lawyers stated that government regulation and taxation of liquor production are almost as old as Congress itself. They pointed out that Congress banned home distillation in order to prevent these producers from evading taxes or avoiding government inspections.
"Moreover, since these location restrictions were established after years of experience in dealing with tax evasion, maintaining them will not open the door for laws that may restrict other behaviors in those without such a historical context," they wrote.
The government stated that Lim requested the Supreme Court to address an “additional issue,” namely whether the restrictions on the locations where families can distill alcohol exceed the Congress’s authority to regulate interstate trade. However, the government urged the Supreme Court to refrain from addressing this issue, arguing that it is neither part of the Lim case nor part of the government’s current arguments in these two cases.
——
Follow Associated Press reports on the U.S. Supreme Court: https :// apnews.com / hub / us-supreme-court
