Here is the uncomfortable civics question hiding inside a very American hobby: can Congress turn what you do in your own kitchen into a federal felony, not because it is inherently harmful, but because it might make taxes harder to collect?
For more than a century and a half, federal law has said that a “distilled spirits plant” may not be located “in any dwelling house, in any shed, yard, or inclosure connected with any dwelling house” (26 U.S.C. § 5178(a)(1)(B)). Violate that rule and you are looking at a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine up to $10,000 (26 U.S.C. § 5601(a)(6)).
That is not a slap on the wrist. That is the federal criminal code reaching through your front door.
Join the Discussion
The short answer: yes, SCOTUS can strike it down
The Supreme Court can invalidate a federal statute when it conflicts with the Constitution. That is not a special power reserved for dramatic moments. It is the basic logic of judicial review: the Constitution is higher law, and statutes that exceed Congress’s enumerated powers do not survive.
But the harder question is what theory of federal power the Court will accept if the government insists the ban is constitutional.
Why the issue is live: two circuits, two answers
The reason this issue is now a serious candidate for Supreme Court review is a classic trigger: a circuit split. Two federal courts of appeals looked at the same home-distilling ban and came away with opposite constitutional conclusions.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit held that the ban cannot be justified as a revenue measure, affirming a permanent injunction that blocks enforcement against specific covered plaintiffs.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld the ban, reasoning that Congress’s taxing authority plus the Necessary and Proper Clause is enough to support it.
When federal constitutional limits produce different outcomes across jurisdictions, the Supreme Court often takes an interest. Not always. But often.
What Congress says it is doing: protecting the liquor tax
The home-distilling ban dates to 1868, when Congress was trying to clamp down on widespread evasion of federal liquor taxes. The basic story is simple: if a still is in a private home, it is easier to hide and harder to inspect. That makes enforcement expensive, inconsistent, and often toothless.
Judge Raymond Kethledge, writing for the 6th Circuit, emphasized the practical enforcement problem. Homes are not like regulated commercial premises. As he put it, “dwelling houses” are much harder to search “at ‘all times, as well by night as by day,’” than bonded distilling premises are.
So the government’s pitch is not that distilling is evil. It is that distilling is taxable, and home distilling is the form most likely to slip the taxman.
The constitutional tension: tax or prohibition
Here is where the civics lesson bites. Congress has the power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” It does not have a general “police power” to criminalize whatever it wants. That power is mostly left to the states.
The 5th Circuit’s approach takes that limitation seriously. Judge Edith Jones pointed out the obvious feature of the home-distilling ban: it does not impose a tax. It bans an activity outright. In her words, “Neither provision raises revenue.” She went further, calling the ban “an anti-revenue provision that prevents distilled spirits from coming into existence” and therefore “operate[s] to reduce revenue instead of raising it.”
And that tees up a key doctrinal distinction the Supreme Court has used before: a tax typically leaves you with a legal choice. Pay the tax and do the thing, or do not do the thing. Judge Jones leaned on Chief Justice John Roberts’s description in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012): a tax “leaves an individual with a lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long as he is willing to pay a tax levied on that choice.” Under the home-distilling ban, there is no lawful choice to pay. There is only compliance or felony exposure.
That is not just semantic. If Congress can call an outright ban “tax enforcement,” the list of federal crimes could expand as far as congressional imagination can stretch.
Necessary and Proper: the backstop argument
If the law is not really a “tax,” defenders of the ban reach for the Necessary and Proper Clause: Congress may “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” its enumerated powers.
This clause gets invoked whenever someone wants to build something bigger than the text seems to allow. But it has limits, and those limits matter. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Court famously allowed Congress leeway to choose reasonable means. The fight today is over whether criminalizing home conduct is a “plainly adapted” means of collecting alcohol taxes, or whether it is a constitutional shortcut that turns a tax power into a general power.
The 5th Circuit said the shortcut is too dangerous. Judge Jones warned that if hiding taxable activity is enough to make something a federal crime, then Congress could reach into “nearly any at-home conduct.” The argument is not about stills. It is about the principle that the federal government is supposed to be one of limited, enumerated powers.
The 6th Circuit was less persuaded by slippery-slope hypotheticals. It treated the home-distilling rule as a fact-bound enforcement tool tied to a particular industry with a long history of tax evasion. In that view, the Constitution does not require Congress to let the hardest-to-police version of a taxable product flourish inside private residences.
Commerce Clause: a road not taken
There is another possible justification for federal regulation of distilling: the Commerce Clause. But in the 5th Circuit litigation, the government did not ultimately press that argument on appeal, so the court did not decide it.
That matters because if the Supreme Court takes a case, it will likely confront the cleanest presented question. Here, that question is primarily about the taxing power and what “necessary and proper” really means when the conduct is local, private, and inside the home.
Standing: can you sue before prosecution
Even if the constitutional arguments are strong, cases can die on a threshold issue that feels almost bureaucratic: standing.
Judge Andre Mathis dissented in the 6th Circuit case on standing grounds, arguing that a person generally must wait for enforcement, or show a truly imminent threat, before challenging a criminal statute. He wrote that the plaintiff failed to show his intention to distill at home “generates a certainly impending threat of prosecution.”
This is not a technicality. It is a gatekeeping rule that can shield old laws from review precisely because they are enforced “haphazardly.” If prosecutors rarely bring cases, courts sometimes say: come back when you are actually in trouble. That is a maddening stance for anyone trying to plan lawful behavior, but it is a recurring feature of constitutional litigation.
What enforcement looks like: narrow protection, real risk
The home-distilling ban is famously spotty in enforcement. People can buy stills and related equipment openly, and hobbyists often operate under the radar. But “rarely enforced” is not the same thing as “legal.”
In 2014, for example, Scott McNutt received a “Notice of Potential Civil and Criminal Liability” from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). The letter warned that “federal law provides no exemptions for the production of distilled spirits for personal or family use” outside a government-approved distillery and that “unlawful production of distilled spirits is a criminal offense.”
Meanwhile, the injunction affirmed in the 5th Circuit does not function like a nationwide legalization, or even a blanket rule for everyone in the states covered by that circuit. It bars the federal government from enforcing the home-distilling ban against McNutt and other members of the Hobby Distillers Association in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, and only if they obtain a federal Distilled Spirits Plant permit.
That condition matters. The Hobby Distillers Association warns plainly: “The injunction does not mean that you cannot be charged for distilling at home!” It explains that the order “simply means that you cannot be denied a DSP (Distilled Spirits Plant) permit simply because you wish to set up at home,” and that you “still must apply for the permit and abide by all rules that a regular DSP does.”
On the other side of the split, the 6th Circuit’s decision means home distillers in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee remain exposed to the ban as those judges understood it.
What it would take to overturn the ban
For the Supreme Court to strike the home-distilling felony down, a majority would have to conclude that Congress used the wrong constitutional tool for the job. That could happen a few ways:
- Taxing-power limits: the Court could hold that an outright ban backed by prison time is not a “tax” and cannot be justified as one.
- Necessary-and-Proper limits: the Court could say that banning home distilling is not a “proper” means of collecting taxes because it destroys the “lawful choice” that distinguishes taxation from criminal prohibition.
- Case-selection discipline: the Court could avoid the merits by ruling on standing, sending litigants back to find a plaintiff with a clearer, more immediate threat of prosecution.
If the Court does reach the merits, the deepest question is not about spirits. It is about structure. Is the federal government allowed to criminalize peaceful, private, intrastate conduct inside the home because that conduct might be used to dodge a tax?
The Constitution was designed to make the federal government answer questions like that with something more than “trust us.”
The mirror test
It is tempting to treat this as a quirky clash between hobbyists and regulators. That is the easy story. The harder story is that the law has been on the books since 1868, and it tests how much of your private life can be federalized through creative constitutional justifications.
If Congress can forbid a home still because a home still might evade a tax, you should at least ask what else can be forbidden on the same logic. And if you think the answer is “not much,” you are going to have to explain where the limiting principle comes from, and why future Congresses would honor it.