New Ruling on Home Distillation - Bring on the Homebrew!
For many hobbyists, making their own beer, cider, or wine at home is a rewarding pastime. However, when it comes to distilling spirits, federal law has been a significant barrier, making unlicensed production of distilled spirits a federal felony. That changed last week when a federal judge in Texas ruled that the law banning unlicensed home distilling is unconstitutional.
This decision is a big win for DIY distillers. It not only protects some hobbyists from harsh penalties but also underscores the importance of limited government powers as outlined in the Constitution. Dan Greenberg, general counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which represented the hobbyists, said, "This decision is a victory for personal freedoms and for federalism. It reminds us that, as Americans, we live under a government of limited powers."
One of the plaintiffs, Scott McNutt, received an unsolicited letter from the Treasury Department’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). The TTB warned him about the potential penalties for purchasing a still capable of producing alcohol, highlighting the severe consequences of unlicensed distilling. To avoid these penalties, the TTB requires federal permits for alcohol production, which are not available to home distillers.
The government argued that the ban on home distilling is necessary to protect federal revenue by preventing tax evasion. However, U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman found this argument unconvincing, especially for noncommercial producers who do not owe such taxes. He noted that the laws prohibiting home distilling do not serve as mechanisms to protect revenue and do not align with the government’s power to collect taxes.
Judge Pittman also rejected the government's claim that the ban was justified under the power to regulate interstate commerce. He pointed out that the provisions do not connect the prohibited behavior to interstate commerce. The government’s argument that home distilling affects interstate commerce in the aggregate was not enough to justify the regulation of noncommercial activity.
In a notable comparison, Pittman differentiated this case from the Supreme Court's 2005 ruling on medical marijuana, which was part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme. He emphasized that the Commerce Clause does not provide Congress with a "blank check" to regulate all activities, reaffirming the limits of federal authority.
The ruling resulted in a permanent injunction that prevented the government from enforcing the home-distilling ban against McNutt and other members of the Texas-based Hobby Distillers Association. CEI attorney Devin Watkins commented, "This case shows that there are limits to the government’s authority. If the government appeals this decision to a higher court, we look forward to illuminating those limits."
This ruling marks a significant step forward for hobbyist distillers and a reminder of the constitutional limits on federal power. It opens the door for more personal freedom in the realm of home distillation and sets a precedent for challenging overreach by the federal government. For DIY enthusiasts, this decision is a cause for celebration and a sign of hope for the future.
Sources:
Comments