US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

The ruling

A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans struck down a federal prohibition on home distilling that dates back to 1868, calling it an improper exercise of Congress’s taxing power. The nearly 158‑year‑old law, passed during Reconstruction to curb liquor tax evasion, once carried penalties of up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The court ruled in favor of the Hobby Distillers Association and four of its members who argued people should be free to distill spirits at home for personal use — yes, even for apple‑pie‑vodka recipes.

Why the court said the law failed

Judge Edith Hollan Jones wrote for the panel that the ban actually reduced, not increased, tax revenue by preventing lawful distilling rather than regulating it and collecting taxes on the product. The judge warned that the government's theory would allow Congress to criminalize virtually any in‑home activity that might escape a tax collector’s notice — remote work, home businesses — and that such a view would arrogate to the federal government a kind of police power the Constitution does not grant. “Without any limiting principle,” she wrote, the theory collapses.

Reactions from both sides

Devin Watkins, who represented the Hobby Distillers Association, hailed the decision as an important check on federal power. Andrew Grossman, who argued the appeal, called it “an important victory for individual liberty” and cheekily added that he looked forward to sampling the plaintiffs’ output. It has been reported that the US Justice Department and the Treasury’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau did not immediately comment.

What it could mean

The ruling upheld a July 2024 decision by a federal district judge in Fort Worth that had been put on hold for appeal, and it raises sharper questions about where federal taxing authority ends and private liberty begins. For hobbyists, this is a small but real win — a decades‑old prohibition swept aside. For regulators, it’s a reminder that long‑standing rules can fall when courts ask hard questions about constitutional limits. So what now? Expect more legal and regulatory skirmishes as Washington figures out where to draw the line between tax policy and day‑to‑day life.

Sources: theguardian.com, Hacker News