Supreme Court Agrees to Review 158-Year-Old Federal Backyard Liquor Ban
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a federal law that has prohibited backyard distilling for more than 150 years. The case brings hard liquor to the high court’s docket following challenges by hobby distillers and a former aerospace engineer.
The home-distilling prohibition dates back to an 1868 congressional tax reform meant to stop commercial tax evasion. Under the law, individuals are barred from producing distilled spirits at home for personal use. Penalties for violating the law include criminal fines, imprisonment, and the potential forfeiture of the violator’s home.
Lower Court Split Over Constitutionality
The legal battle heated up in 2014 when the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau sent a liability notice to Scott McNutt, a member of the Hobby Distillers Association. The bureau warned that his purchase of equipment capable of producing distilled spirits for personal use could bring up to five years of imprisonment and $500,000 in fines.
McNutt and the association sued, arguing that the ban exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers and unconstitutionally criminalizes local conduct. Two lower courts, including the Fifth Circuit, declared the law unconstitutional and blocked its enforcement against McNutt and association members.
Source: Courthouse News Service
Conflicting Decisions From Federal Circuits
Meanwhile, a separate challenge emerged out of Ohio when John Ream filed suit to distill whiskey for personal consumption with his wife. A court concluded Ream lacked standing because he had not yet purchased a still, and the Sixth Circuit upheld that dismissal.
With the Fifth and Sixth circuits issuing opposite judgments on materially identical facts, federal criminal law on distilling ended up meaning one thing in Texas and the opposite in Ohio. The federal government asked the Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit’s decision, prompting the justices to take up the case.
What This Means for Home Distillers
While the Supreme Court reviews the case, the legal landscape remains divided and uncertain. Members of the Hobby Distillers Association covered by the Fifth Circuit injunction may distill at home, while individuals elsewhere risk criminal penalties for identical conduct.
Ordinary people engaged in hobby distilling should recognize that federal criminal law on distilling varies by jurisdiction while the Supreme Court review is pending. No specific deadlines or administrative steps are outlined in the filings for individuals to take right now.
Anyone facing potential federal liability or questions regarding equipment purchases may want to consult a lawyer to understand their exposure.
What this means: our conclusions
- ContextNational Uniformity in Criminal Law
The Supreme Court's review could eliminate the current disuniformity where home distilling is protected in some states but criminal in others.
- RiskOngoing Legal Risk for Hobbyists
Outside of protected association members, individuals currently engaging in home distilling face severe criminal penalties and forfeiture risks.
- What to watchLimits on Congressional Tax Powers
A final ruling may define the constitutional boundaries of Congress's taxing authority regarding purely local and personal conduct.
- What to doConsult a Defense Attorney
Individuals with distilling equipment or questions about personal liability should consult a criminal defense lawyer to evaluate risks.
| Court | Case / Challenger | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Fifth Circuit | Scott McNutt / Hobby Distillers | Declared unconstitutional; enforcement enjoined |
| Sixth Circuit | John Ream | Dismissed for lack of standing; dismissal upheld |
Source: Courthouse News Service
Find a lawyer for this issue
Federal rules apply nationwide, but your options depend on your state and situation. Browse attorneys by practice area, then pick your state.
This article is general information based on Courthouse News Service and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published October 19, 2026.
Source: Courthouse News Service
DOJ, USDA launch nationwide SNAP fraud crackdown, $42 M alleged loss
The Justice Department and USDA announced a surge of enforcement actions that targeted more than 40 defendants, alleging nearly $42 million in SNAP benefit fraud.
Supreme Court likely to keep current deference to sentencing guidelines commentary
At oral arguments in Beaird v. United States, the justices showed little appetite for overturning the 1993 Stinson rule that gives weight to the Sentencing Commission’s advisory commentary.
10th Circuit Rules Defendants Must Prove Native American Status in Tribal Land Crimes
A federal appeals court decided that criminal defendants asserting Native American status as a defense on tribal land bear the burden of proof.
Justice Department and IRS Target Tax Fraud in Nationwide Sweep
Federal authorities launched a national tax enforcement surge, taking action against 76 defendants over an estimated $490 million in tax fraud schemes.
Supreme Court weighs agency deference in firearm sentencing case
The Court heard arguments about whether judges must follow the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s definition of large‑capacity magazines in a Texas felon's firearm case.