Home Distiller Takes Fight Against 150-Year-Old Liquor Ban to Supreme Court

An Ohio resident and former aerospace engineer is asking the Supreme Court to review a federal law that has prohibited the distillation of spirits at home for over 150 years, classifying it as a felony. John Ream, a home-brewing enthusiast, wishes to distill small quantities of spirits for personal consumption, a stark contrast to the federally permitted home production of beer and wine.

Robert Alt, an attorney representing Ream and president of the Buckeye Institute, highlighted the legal discrepancy. "It is perfectly legal to make beer at home or to make wine at home, but if you make even a single ounce of distilled spirits at home, it is a federal felony," Alt told Fox News Digital.

Ream's passion for brewing began when he received a home-brewing kit as a gift. He found the process a blend of art and science that appealed to his engineering background. This interest led him and his wife, Kristin, to open Trek Brewing Company in Newark, Ohio. However, his desire to experiment with distilling spirits at home introduced him to a more restrictive legal landscape.

Federal law allows individuals to produce beer and wine for personal or family use, but the distillation of spirits at home remains illegal and can result in significant fines and imprisonment. The American Homebrewers Association, a trade group, has not taken an official stance on legalizing home distilling but emphasizes safety and education within the home-brewing community.

The historical roots of this federal distinction trace back to 1791 when the U.S. government first imposed taxes on distilled spirits, a move that contributed to the Whiskey Rebellion. In 1868, to combat tax evasion, Congress implemented regulations on distilled spirits, including restrictions on distillery operations. This century-and-a-half-old tax framework is at the heart of the modern legal challenge.

"To what extent can Congress regulate local non-commercial otherwise lawful [activity] that you engage in, in your very home?" Alt questioned. "That really is the core question in this case."

Two federal appellate courts have issued conflicting rulings on the constitutionality of the home-distilling ban. In April, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the restriction, arguing it was a lawful means to support federal liquor tax collection. Conversely, 11 days prior, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a separate case that Congress's taxing authority did not justify the prohibition.

Both Ream's case and the challenge decided by the Fifth Circuit have been submitted to the Supreme Court, but the justices have not yet agreed to hear either case. The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions annually and typically hears a small fraction of them.

The federal government maintains that the ban is a necessary component of its system for protecting and collecting excise taxes on distilled spirits. Ream and other advocates for home distilling argue that tax collection does not grant Congress the authority to ban the hobby outright.

For those interested in homebrewing, the Supreme Court's decision on whether to hear these cases could determine if home distillation of spirits will be permitted, moving the practice from commercial distilleries into private homes. Alt views this potential shift as an "opportunity to raise a glass to freedom and to limited government."