Whiskey rebellion over 1868 law on home distilleries heads to the Supreme Court

Jessica Phelps/The Newark Advocate/USA Today Network/Imagn Images

When John Ream got into brewing beer at home nearly two decades ago, starting out was as easy as opening the kit his wife bought for him as a gift.

But the Ohio engineer’s plans ran dry when he tried to switch to making whiskey. That’s because a 160-year-old federal law bars Americans from making distilled spirits at home. Ream could have faced jail time if he followed through and was caught, and risk losing his home. Instead of pouring himself a stiff drink, he sued.

“Brewing is a nice blend of science and art, and being able to combine different flavors together,” Ream told CNN in an interview, adding that he did not intend to sell his creations. “I would like to take the same skills that I’ve learned and try my hand at distilling.”

Why Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson goes it alone

Two appeals were filed at the Supreme Court, one from Ream and the other from the Justice Department. The Supreme Court granted only the DOJ case, though its decision will likely decide Ream’s suit as well. The justices will hear arguments early next year and hand down a decision by the end of June.

The government’s appeal dealt with a Texas group called Hobby Distillers Association and individual members that wanted to distill spirits at home. One of them received a letter from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, part of the Treasury Department, threatening a $500,000 fine.

Ream’s lawyers, who are also challenging the law in the DOJ case, say could have broad implications beyond making booze. The ban was enacted in 1868 ostensibly to limit rampant tax evasion by commercial distillers. But under that theory, Ream argues, the government could ban any number of activities at home – baking, sewing, remote work – simply by taxing it and citing evasion as a justification.

The government collected $6 billion in revenue from the tax in 2024.

Federal law bans the making of distilled spirits in any “dwelling house,” shed or yard. The Justice Department, which is defending the law at the Supreme Court, said the provision was intended to head off evasion of federal excise taxes that were levied on distilled spirits for much of the nation’s history and were revived in the mid-19th century to help pay for the cost of fighting the Civil War.

There’s no dispute that Congress has the power to levy the tax. The Justice Department argues that lawmakers’ authority to ban home distilleries flows from the Constitution’s necessary and proper clause, which gives Congress broad leeway to pass laws required to carry out its enumerated powers.

“Congress restricted home distilling because a distiller can more easily conceal a distilling operation or thwart necessary inspections — thereby evading the requisite tax — if the still is located in a dwelling-house or connected structure,” the Trump administration told the justices in court papers.

But Ream and a group of would-be distillers in a separate case argue that the biggest problem with tax evasion at the time was not home distillers but commercial distributors who found it cheaper to bribe revenue agents than pay the federal tax. They say that the prohibition on homemade whiskey was really a sop to the temperance movement in exchange for lowering the tax.

AFP/Getty Images/FILE

Supreme Court backs Pentagon decision to throw out plea deals for 9/11 alleged conspirators

“There’s not much in the record that supports their theory that the home distilling prohibition had anything to do with tax evasion,” said Robert Alt, president of The Buckeye Institute, which is representing Ream and the others challenging the ban at the Supreme Court. “This prohibition seemed to be probably a political logroll,” he said, so that lawmakers could avoid looking soft on liquor as they made other changes to the way the excise tax worked.

While the Justice Department notes the government’s long history of taxing liquor, several conservative groups that support Ream have pointed out that there is also a healthy history of the founding fathers distilling whiskey, brandy and other spirits at home. People visiting Mount Vernon in Virginia can tour George Washington’s distillery and even purchase bottles produced at the site.

As president, Washington moved to quell the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. By the time he died a few years later, his estate operated one of the largest distilleries in the nation. It is a point that several of the conservative justices, who have sharpened the court’s focus on the founding era, could note during arguments. When the court heard arguments earlier this year in a challenge to a federal law that permitted police to disarm regular drug users, Justice Neil Gorsuch led a soliloquy about the founders’ drinking habits.

“John Adams took a tankard of hard cider with his breakfast every day. James Madison reportedly drank a pint of whiskey every day,” Gorsuch told the attorney representing the Trump administration in March. “Are they all habitual drunkards who would be properly disarmed for life under your theory?”

Penalties for violating the home distillery ban are severe. They include criminal fines and up to five years in prison. A violator’s home would also be subject to forfeiture.

Two federal appeals courts reached different outcomes after reviewing the home distillery ban. The Louisiana-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals decided that, “while venerable,” the prohibition violated the necessary and proper clause. But the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit came to the opposite conclusion, and it brushed off the idea that its decision would logically allow the government to ban other types of activities at home.

That’s because, the appeals court said, alcohol is essentially in a class by itself.

“Indeed, rules concerning alcohol more generally are unique as to the evasion that often accompanies them,” the 6th Circuit wrote. “From excise taxes, to Prohibition, to the use of fake IDs to obtain alcohol (itself almost a rite of passage for some generations), to moonshiners even today.”

杰西卡·菲尔普斯/《纽瓦克倡导者报》/今日美国网络/Imagn Images

大约二十年前，约翰·里姆开始在家酿造啤酒，一切都很简单，只需打开妻子送给他的酿酒工具包即可。

但这位俄亥俄州工程师的计划在他尝试酿造威士忌时却落空了。这是因为一项已有160年历史的联邦法律禁止美国公民在家酿造蒸馏酒。如果里姆真的这么做了，一旦被抓获，他不仅可能面临牢狱之灾，还可能失去住所。但他并没有就此罢休，而是提起了诉讼。

“酿酒是科学与艺术的完美结合，能够将不同的风味融合在一起，”里姆在接受CNN采访时表示，并补充说他并不打算出售自己的作品。“我想运用我所学到的技能，尝试一下蒸馏酒。”

为什么凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊大法官要独自行动

最高法院受理了两起上诉，一起来自里姆，另一起来自司法部。最高法院仅受理了司法部的上诉，但其裁决很可能也会对里姆的诉讼作出裁决。大法官们将于明年初听取双方辩论，并在六月底前作出裁决。

政府此次上诉涉及一个名为“业余酿酒师协会”的德克萨斯州团体及其成员，他们希望在家酿造烈酒。其中一位成员收到了一封来自财政部下属的酒精和烟草税收贸易局的信函，信中威胁要处以50万美元的罚款。

里姆的律师们也在司法部提起诉讼，挑战这项法律。他们表示，这项禁令的影响可能远不止于酿酒。该禁令于1868年颁布，表面上是为了限制商业酿酒商猖獗的逃税行为。但里姆认为，按照这种理论，政府可以仅仅通过征税并以逃税为由，禁止任何家庭活动——烘焙、缝纫、远程办公等等。

2024年，政府从该税收中获得了60亿美元的收入。

联邦法律禁止在任何“住宅”、棚屋或院子里酿造蒸馏酒。司法部正在最高法院为该法律辩护，称这项规定旨在防止逃避联邦消费税。联邦消费税曾长期对蒸馏酒征收，并在19世纪中期为了支付内战费用而恢复征收。

国会有权征收该税项这一点毋庸置疑。司法部辩称，立法者禁止家庭酿酒的权力源于宪法的“必要且适当条款”，该条款赋予国会广泛的自由裁量权，使其能够通过必要的法律来行使其列举的权力。

“国会限制家庭酿酒，是因为如果酿酒设备位于住宅或附属建筑物内，酿酒者更容易隐藏酿酒活动或逃避必要的检查，从而逃避应缴税款，”特朗普政府在法庭文件中告诉法官们。

但里姆和另一起案件中的一群潜在酿酒商辩称，当时逃税的最大问题并非家庭酿酒者，而是商业经销商，因为他们发现贿赂税务人员比缴纳联邦税更划算。他们认为，禁止自制威士忌实际上是为了安抚禁酒运动，换取降低税收。

法新社/盖蒂图片社/档案照片

最高法院支持五角大楼驳回9/11事件涉嫌共谋者的认罪协议的决定

“几乎没有证据支持他们关于家庭酿酒禁令与逃税有关的理论，”代表里姆和其他在最高法院挑战该禁令的人的俄亥俄州立大学巴克艾研究所所长罗伯特·阿尔特说。“这项禁令似乎更像是一场政治交易，”他说，这样立法者在对消费税的运作方式进行其他修改时，就可以避免被认为对酒类问题态度软弱。

尽管司法部指出政府对酒类征税由来已久，但支持里姆的几个保守派团体则指出，美国开国元勋们在家酿造威士忌、白兰地和其他烈酒的历史也相当悠久。游客前往弗吉尼亚州的弗农山庄，可以参观乔治·华盛顿的酿酒厂，甚至可以购买在那里酿造的酒。

作为总统，华盛顿着手平息了1794年的威士忌叛乱。几年后他去世时，他的庄园已发展成为全美最大的酿酒厂之一。这一点值得几位保守派大法官在辩论中提及，他们一直以来都更加关注建国时期的历史。今年早些时候，最高法院审理了一起挑战联邦法律的案件，该法律允许警察解除普通吸毒者的武装。在庭审中，尼尔·戈萨奇大法官就美国建国先贤们的饮酒习惯发表了一番独白。

戈萨奇在三月份对代表特朗普政府的律师说：“约翰·亚当斯每天早餐都要喝一大杯苹果酒。据说詹姆斯·麦迪逊每天都要喝一品脱威士忌。按照你的理论，他们都是应该终身解除武装的惯犯吗？”

违反家庭酿酒禁令的处罚非常严厉，包括刑事罚款和最高五年监禁，违规者的房产也将被没收。

两家联邦上诉法院在审查家庭酿酒禁令后得出了截然不同的结论。位于路易斯安那州的第五巡回上诉法院裁定，尽管该禁令“历史悠久”，但违反了必要且适当条款。而位于辛辛那提的第六巡回上诉法院则得出了相反的结论，并驳斥了其裁决会从逻辑上允许政府禁止其他类型家庭活动的说法。

上诉法院表示，这是因为酒精本质上是一种独特的物质。

“事实上，关于酒精的法规总体而言具有独特性，因为经常伴随着规避行为，”第六巡回法院写道。“从消费税到禁酒令，再到使用假身份证获取酒精（这本身几乎是某些世代的成人礼），甚至到如今的私酒贩子。”