U.S. Supreme Court to review 1868 federal ban on home distilling of liquor

privacyishuman

>“Our country’s founders would be rolling over in their graves to learn that a pastime in which even George Washington partook, which is as American as apple pie and certainly a lot older, has quite absurdly been turned into a federal crime,” Alt said. I'm convinced. And it's making me think anyone that disagrees hates apple pie and America.

nanolith

This would do to spirits what homebrewing has done to beer in this country. So many varieties were rediscovered and popularized when homebrewing and microbrewing were legalized during the Carter Administration. Liquor has become consolidated among a half dozen global conglomerates. Varieties have been streamlined. Folks who are into making historical cocktails tend to hit roadblocks or make modern "almost" substitutions. I'm in favor of this ban being struck down, even though I can't really take advantage of it. I brewed beer and wine when I was younger, but for health reasons, I can't drink alcohol anymore.

wwosik

Shouldn't it be the Congress that creates or voids the laws and not a court? If a law was standing for 150 years them whatever the law I feel it should be changed by the electable lawmakers, not by "council of elders".

nradov

It's a little late for that since apparently everyone quit drinking. https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/21/health/alcohol-use-decline-st...

QGQBGdeZREunxLe

I found this Hill opinion piece more informing. Arguing against the ban. > When federal appellate courts reach opposing conclusions, known as a circuit split, the odds exponentially increase for the Supreme Court to grant review and clear up the confusion. Likewise, when a federal statute is struck down in whole or in part, the Supreme Court is even more likely to hear the case. In these two cases, we have a perfect storm where both of those scenarios have occurred. > If the taxing power supplemented by the Necessary and Proper Clause were the only issue in contention, we would already have quite a sexy Supreme Court case. To dress it up even further, plaintiff John Ream astutely argued in his Sixth Circuit filings that the federal ban on at-home alcohol distillation for personal consumption also exceeds Congress’s Article I power to regulate interstate commerce because the activity in dispute is neither commerce nor interstate. > The Supreme Court’s misguided 1942 decision in Wickard v. Filburn found that Congress could regulate wheat even if it is consumed on its originating farm. In the time since, far too much mischief has been committed in the name of regulating interstate commerce that is neither interstate nor even commerce. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/5857091-home-distillin...

aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA

Don’t sip from the first fraction; it’s methanol.

Rodmine

For those who missed the point: this post is related to the Deepseek ban. You can't have open source AI models, because the "distilleries" don't like it.

phyzix5761

Is it possible this is an attempt from liquor companies to increase alcohol consumption in the US where its already declining and hurting their bottom line?

shevy-java

The main question is why a government in an allegedly free country thinks it can control what people do. This is not solely confined on forbidding production of liquor but also taps into all those other discussions about "sovereign" citizens. It is a question of how much slavery a government can enact. It is an interesting discussion because on youtube you see many videos where people poke fun at sovereign citizens being largely clueless, but they then don't answer the follow-up question as to how much control a government may have over "its" people. And who controls the making of laws. And why any law xyz would have to be binding - since without enforcement, the law would not be effective (and often is not, anyway, if you are rich).