U.S. Supreme Court to hear challenge to federal home-distilling ban

Lower courts split on constitutionality; a ruling could come in summer 2027

The Supreme Court announced this week that it would reconsider the 1868 legislation forbidding home distilling. It will hear a case early next year on whether Congress may continue to bar distilling spirits in private homes, reviving a constitutional challenge to the legislation. Plaintiffs say Congress overstepped its powers in restricting distilling for tax purposes during the Reconstruction era. Government lawyers argue the measure was lawful and necessary to stop producers from avoiding taxes. One lower court found the almost 160-year-old ban unconstitutional, while another reached the opposite conclusion in a separate, similar case; the court could rule in summer 2027.

Distilling alcohol in a private home currently carries a penalty of up to five years in prison, a $10,000 (£7,460) fine, or both. Home distillers hope their spirits will be treated like beer and wine, which can be brewed at home across the country, and some hope they no longer have to keep their hobby secret. Lawyer Robert Alt, representing the plaintiffs, said, “The particular law in question here is both absurd and unconstitutional.” He added, “It’s interesting to note that this is a hobby which is as American as apple pie - and certainly a lot older.” Alt, Geno Stecks and other proponents point out that George Washington himself distilled spirits at home.

Missouri and New Hampshire have enacted laws allowing certain amounts of spirits to be produced at home for personal consumption while the federal prohibition remains in force. Alt said, “alcohol, traditionally, has been an area of state regulation … so this question of state versus federal authority is really at the very heart of this case.” He also said the legal challenge addresses what oversight federal authorities may exercise over activities in the home: “This circuit court said, look, if the federal government is right on this, there’s almost no limits to what they could ban at home in the name of taxation,” Alt said.

Don Gosen, a distillery owner and former Missouri state representative, said he helped shape Missouri’s 1995 law allowing residents to distill 100 gallons of spirits at home per year per person, or 200 gallons per household. Gosen said he had never seen the federal government fine anyone for home distilling. “I’ve never seen the federal government come and fine anybody for doing it, because it’s kind of small potatoes … and so a lot of people, I believe, still do it, kind of behind the scenes like in the old days,” he said. Many people have sought Gosen’s advice over the years without knowing about the federal law, and some have brought him homemade bottles and asked for his opinion. “I’ll taste it, and it’ll be terrible,” Gosen laughed. “And I’ll throw on a happy face and say, ‘Oh, it’s wonderful’ - because they made it. They love it.”

Geno Stecks, 66, is a bearded Wyoming mechanic and amateur moonshiner who began making homemade moonshine two years ago while tinkering with recipes. At his two-bedroom home, he converted the dining room into what he calls a “shining room,” set up still equipment there and uses a power drill fixed to a bowl to mix some of his recipe. “I turned my dining room into my shining room,” Stecks said. The hobby taught him new skills and gave him a signature product to share with friends and neighbors: “coffee-flavoured shine.” Distilling at home is illegal under U.S. law. “You know, keep quiet - don’t make commercials or nothing,” Stecks said.

Rick Morris, founder and president of the Hobby Distillers Association, was among the challengers who sued in Texas to change the law. He first entered the drinks industry working with soda machines and bottled water, then became a hobbyist home brewer of beer and wine with his wife. A photo caption identifies his wife as Dawn and says the couple want to take the “next step” from brewing beer and wine to spirits. Their attempt to do so was frustrating. “It didn’t make sense,” Morris said. “I could make beer, I could make wine, both perfectly legally … and it was frustrating that I couldn’t take what I had already legally made and do one more step to it, to start to try to make a bourbon or a brandy.” Morris and many other hobbyists describe the mechanics and innovation behind distilling as part of its appeal.

The BBC’s main text identifies Ohio challenger John Bream as an aerospace engineer by trade. A photo caption accompanying an image credited to John Ream and the Buckeye Institute instead identifies the Ohio engineer and plaintiff as John Ream, 40, setting up brewing equipment. The report gives no explanation for the differing surnames. Bream said, “There is a lot of science and details to get straightened out, but there is still a big vein of creativity in the art that goes into it - blending flavours and aromas and all that.” His wife gave him a home-brewing kit around 17 years ago. He set up in their kitchen but “made too many messes and got kicked out into the garage.” “Through homebrewing, I became aware that going to the next level of distilling was illegal … so I stayed away from it,” he said. Bream later joined legal challenges to the federal law because he could be “part of the force for good.”

Not everyone supports legalizing home production. Courtney Armour, chief legal officer at The Distilled Spirits Council of the US, told the BBC she was concerned about the challenges and dangers of producing spirits at home. “The distillation process can be quite dangerous, including risk of explosion, burns, fires, and more,” Armour said. “The spirits industry has a clear focus on safety and process management to mitigate these risks, but even in that careful environment there are still accidents, injuries and even fatalities.” Armour also raised health concerns when alcohol has not been produced properly. “In a home-distilling setting, these dangers would not just be limited to the individuals engaging in the production but also their neighbors in the surrounding area,” she said.

Historian Daniel Pierce told the BBC that home distilling was first criminalized for revenue purposes, requiring anyone who made spirits to pay a tax. When federal agents began enforcing the law, small farmers who distilled on the side to earn extra money or barter were left with few options. “If you’re a large distiller or something, you could afford to [pay the tax], but for most people, it was out of the question,” Pierce said. Pierce said the nationwide ban on alcohol production and sale between 1930 and 1933 created a new market for illegal distillers, particularly moonshiners. He linked the birth of NASCAR to the high-speed modified cars bootleggers used to transport illicit liquor and outrun the law. Many continued distilling illegally after Prohibition ended, often passing family recipes in secret, or at least in tightly knit circles, for generations. Pierce said home distilling experienced another revival in the early 2000s, driven by reality television programs such as Moonshiners, the internet and popular culture. “You start to get this pretty dramatic revival…. in terms of home distilling,” he said.

Gosen, Morris and others within the spirits industry believe legalizing home distilling will help it grow. “Home interest generally turns into a better consumer, a more educated consumer, a more sophisticated consumer, just a consumer that spends more,” Gosen said. He predicted distillery owners would open their doors to home distillers and offer classes: “You’re going to have people like myself that are going to start opening our doors to home distillers and have classes for them and help them out.” In Wyoming, Stecks agreed that more people would start distilling at home if they did not risk penalties or prison, and he saw only growth and good things coming from legalization. “That’d just make it better,” he said.