Skip to main content
CadNews - Comparative News Analysis
Topics
Sign in
Back to brief

Politics · October 19, 2026

Supreme Court to decide legality of ban on distilling liquor at home

7 sources →

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Department of Justice v. McNutt to determine the constitutionality of a 160-year-old federal ban on home distilling. The law, enacted in 1868 to combat rampant tax evasion by commercial distillers, currently prohibits the production of distilled spirits in dwellings, with penalties including fines and up to five years in prison. The case reached the high court after conflicting rulings: the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the ban as an overreach of congressional power, while the 6th Circuit upheld it. Challengers argue the ban exceeds Congress's authority under the Taxation and Necessary and Proper Clauses, while the government contends the restriction is essential for ensuring taxable activity is not concealed from inspection.

Read the original coverage

Reported across the spectrum

  • The Supreme Court agreed to hear Department of Justice v. McNutt.
  • The federal ban on home distilling was enacted in 1868 (or the 1860s).
  • Violators face potential criminal penalties of up to five years in prison.
  • The case involves the Hobby Distillers Association and Texas resident Scott McNutt.
  • The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled the ban unconstitutional.
  • Congress originally enacted the law to prevent tax evasion.

Reported by only some outlets

  • One challenger, Rick Morris, owns a company that manufactures stills for home use.
  • A separate challenge in Ohio (John Ream) resulted in the 6th Circuit upholding the ban.
  • West Virginia legalized home distilling at the state level in 2024.
  • The federal government collected $6.8 billion in distilled spirit taxes in fiscal year 2023.
  • If the ban is overturned, home distillers would still be required to register stills and pay excise taxes.

About these outlets

CadNews does not determine absolute truth or endorse political viewpoints. It compares publicly available reporting, identifies shared facts, highlights framing differences, and flags uncertainty.