The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Reconstruction-era federal law that banned Americans from distilling spirits in their own homes, ruling that Congress exceeded its taxing authority when it criminalized the practice in 1868. The decision, handed down Friday, affirms a lower court ruling and marks a significant win for individual liberty and limited government.
The case was brought by the Hobby Distillers Association and several of its members, including Rick Morris, a man who manufactures stills for legally approved distilling operations. Morris wanted to distill bourbon whiskey at home for his brother and friends. When he discovered that doing so could land him in federal prison, he founded the association and took the fight to court, UPI reported.
The law in question dates to July 1868, when Congress imposed excise taxes on distilled spirits and tobacco. Alongside the tax came a flat prohibition: no one could produce spirits at home, period. Violators faced penalties of up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The government's rationale was simple, a home distiller could more easily hide the strength of a spirit or conceal an entire operation from tax collectors.
For 158 years, that reasoning held. It doesn't anymore.
The Fifth Circuit's opinion drew a sharp line between Congress's power to tax and its power to prohibit. The federal government argued the ban was necessary to prevent tax evasion. The court disagreed, writing:
"Congress's taxing power 'reaches only existing subjects,' not activity that may generate subjects of taxation."
In other words, Congress can tax distilled spirits. But it cannot use the threat of taxation as a pretext to ban an activity outright, especially one conducted privately, in a citizen's own home. The court went further, warning that the government's theory had no limiting principle.
Circuit Judge Edith Hollan Jones, writing for the panel, put it bluntly. The New York Post reported her opinion stated:
"Without any limiting principle, the government's theory would violate this court's obligation to read the Constitution carefully to avoid creating a general federal authority akin to the police power."
The court also found the ban failed the "necessary and proper" test, the constitutional standard for whether a law is a legitimate exercise of an enumerated power. Banning an entire category of private activity to make tax collection easier, the court held, goes well beyond what that clause permits.
The ruling upheld a July 2024 decision by U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, who first found the ban unconstitutional. The government appealed. It lost again.
The decision fits into a broader judicial trend of courts scrutinizing the outer boundaries of federal power. In recent months, appellate courts have shown increasing willingness to push back when the government stretches constitutional authority past its plain meaning, whether the issue involves legislative overreach in state redistricting or longstanding criminal statutes that rest on shaky constitutional footing.
Attorney Andrew Grossman, who represented the Hobby Distillers Association, called the ruling "an important victory for individual liberty" that lets the plaintiffs "pursue their passion to distill fine beverages in their homes." Grossman is also involved in a separate case in Ohio, where a man named John Ream is challenging the same federal ban through the Sixth Circuit after a district court dismissed his suit on standing grounds. The Washington Examiner reported that the Buckeye Institute argues Ream should be allowed to contest the law's constitutionality without first risking criminal prosecution.
That parallel case underscores just how broadly the old ban reached, and how many Americans it affected. Home brewing of beer and wine has been legal at the federal level since 1978. Home distilling never got the same treatment.
The Hobby Distillers Association said the ruling was a major victory and a turning point for hobby distillers nationwide. The organization noted that under the decision, people can obtain permits from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, follow federal regulations, and pay applicable taxes, the same framework that already governs commercial distilling operations.
The ruling does not automatically legalize home distilling across the country. The Washington Times noted that state laws still apply, and many states maintain their own restrictions on home production of spirits. The federal government may also appeal the decision, potentially setting up a showdown at the Supreme Court.
Before the ruling, the U.S. Department of Treasury stated on its website that producing spirits at any location not qualified and licensed by the bureau was illegal. That position now stands in direct conflict with a federal appellate court's finding. How the Treasury Department responds, whether it updates its guidance, seeks further review, or simply digs in, remains an open question.
The broader legal landscape is shifting, too. The Supreme Court has shown a growing appetite for re-examining the scope of federal authority, from administrative law to criminal statutes. The recent vacating of Steve Bannon's contempt conviction is just one example of the judiciary revisiting cases where the government's legal footing looked less solid on closer inspection.
And in the Minnesota protest-rules case, another federal appeals court weighed the boundaries of government power against individual rights. The direction of travel is clear: courts are asking harder questions about what Washington can and cannot do.
The 1868 law was a product of its time. The federal government, desperate for revenue after the Civil War, cast a wide net over anything that could generate tax dollars. Distilled spirits were a prime target. The prohibition on home distilling was aimed at preventing people from skirting tax collectors, a reasonable concern in an era of limited enforcement capacity.
But the Constitution doesn't grant Congress a blank check to ban private activity simply because that activity might, in theory, make tax collection harder. That was the Fifth Circuit's core finding. The government's argument, taken to its logical end, would have allowed Congress to criminalize any private conduct that could conceivably touch a taxable good. Bake bread at home? That's flour that wasn't commercially sold and taxed. Grow tomatoes in your garden? Same logic.
The court refused to go there. And it was right to refuse.
Rick Morris just wanted to make bourbon for his brother. The federal government told him that doing so, in his own home, with his own equipment, for personal consumption, was a crime punishable by five years in prison. He fought back, built an organization, and won. Twice.
The case now sits as binding precedent in the Fifth Circuit, covering Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Whether it spreads further depends on the government's next move and whether other circuits follow suit. The Sixth Circuit case involving John Ream could provide an early signal.
For now, the 158-year-old ban is dead in three states. The principle behind the ruling, that the taxing power is not a general police power, is alive everywhere.
When the federal government can't even articulate a limiting principle for its own authority, it shouldn't be surprised when a court draws the line for it.
