A federal appeals court has ruled that a long-standing federal prohibition on distilling alcohol at home is unconstitutional.
In a decision issued Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the federal ban on producing distilled spirits in homes and surrounding property violates the Constitution’s Taxation Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
The ruling dates back to 1868 and has historically been tied to the federal government’s authority to tax alcohol production.
The case was brought by members of the Hobby Distillers Association. The group said they wanted to produce small quantities of spirits like bourbon at home for personal use, similar to the way federal law allows home brewing of beer and wine.
Circuit Judge Edith Hollan Jones said the prohibition goes too far because it does not actually function as a tax.
“Congress’s authority under the taxing power is limited to requiring an individual to pay money into the Federal Treasury, no more,” the court wrote.
Instead of raising revenue, the law “prevents distilled spirits from coming into existence,” the opinion said.
The federal statute bars individuals from operating stills in a home, yard or nearby structures and carries penalties of up to five years in prison and fines of up to $10,000.
The government argued the restriction is necessary to prevent tax evasion, since home distilling could make it easier to produce untaxed alcohol. But the court rejected that reasoning, saying Congress cannot ban activity simply because it might be harder to tax.
The court also found that the law improperly interferes with decisions reserved to the states.
The ruling marks a significant shift in federal alcohol regulation. While home production of beer and wine has been legal for decades, distilling spirits at home has remained broadly prohibited under federal law.
The appeals court also concluded that all of the plaintiffs had legal standing to challenge the law, reversing part of the lower court’s decision that had dismissed some of them from the case.
The decision leaves in place an injunction blocking enforcement of the federal ban against the plaintiffs.