Supreme Court to review federal ban on distilling liquor at home
publishers 17articles 17first reported 19 Oct, 13:35 UTCdeveloping since 19 Oct · 8 editions
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to review a federal ban on distilling spirits in private homes, taking up challenges that produced conflicting federal appeals court rulings in Texas and Ohio.
The law, enacted in 1868, prohibits distilling spirits in a dwelling or its surrounding structures. Violations can carry a fine of up to $10,000 and as many as five years in prison. Federal law permits people to make beer and wine at home for personal use.
The Texas challengers include the Hobby Distillers Association and several members. They sued after the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau told them they could not obtain licenses to distill at home. Their claims include an argument that Congress exceeded its taxing power because the prohibition itself does not generate revenue. An Ohio resident brought a separate challenge raising similar claims.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the challengers in the Texas case, while the 6th Circuit upheld the restriction in the Ohio case. The losing parties appealed, and both sides supported Supreme Court review to establish a nationwide rule.
The federal government argues that Congress may restrict where taxable activity occurs when there is a substantial risk that taxes will go unpaid. Even if the challengers prevail, home distillers would still be required to register their stills and pay excise taxes on spirits made for personal consumption.
HOW THIS STORY WAS MADE
Written from 8 articles, 1 with the publisher's own text; 8 independent newsrooms once syndicated copies count as one; this version written 2 h after the record first saw the story; the editor kept it as written.
- Publishers
- 17
- Source articles
- 17
- Given to the writer
- 8, 1 with the article's own text
- Independent newsrooms
- 8
- This version written
- 2 h after the record first saw the story
- Second model (editor)
- kept as written
- Publication gate
- passed
- Human review
- none
WHAT THE EDITOR DID
The second model checked the writer's draft against the same sources and published it as written.
Written by a language model from the sources above, then checked by a second model that may only cut, attribute or correct. How it works →