Federal appeals court strikes down 158-year-old ban on home distilling as unconstitutional

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled the 1868 home distilling ban unconstitutional. Learn why judges say the federal government overstepped its tax power.

By: AXL Media

Published: Apr 11, 2026, 10:01 AM EDT

Source: Information for this report was sourced from Reuters

A Landmark Ruling for At-Home Spirits

A federal appeals court in New Orleans has declared a Reconstruction-era law banning the distillation of spirits at home to be unconstitutional, marking a significant shift in federal alcohol regulation. On Friday, April 10, 2026, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Hobby Distillers Association, an organization representing approximately 1,300 enthusiasts. The decision invalidates a federal statute dating back to July 1868, which had previously made the production of distilled spirits for personal consumption a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a 10,000 dollar fine.

Overstepping Federal Taxing Authority

The court’s opinion, authored by Circuit Judge Edith Hollan Jones, focused heavily on the limits of Congressional power under the Constitution’s Taxation and Necessary and Proper clauses. The Department of Justice had defended the ban as a necessary tool to prevent liquor tax evasion, arguing that allowing home production would make it impossible for the government to track and tax spirits. However, Judge Jones rejected this "limiting principle," stating that the ban actually reduced potential revenue by prohibiting the activity entirely rather than regulating and taxing it. The ruling emphasized that the federal government does not possess a general "police power" to criminalize private in-home activities merely because they might escape the notice of tax collectors.

Protecting Personal Liberty and Hobbies

The lawsuit was spearheaded by four individual members of the Hobby Distillers Association who sought the right to produce spirits for personal use, such as experimenting with specific recipes like apple-pie vodka. Lawyers for the association, led by Andrew Grossman, successfully argued that distilling a bottle of whiskey for private enjoyment is a non-economic hobby that should not fall under the purview of federal commerce or tax regulation. The court agreed, noting that under the government’s broad interpretation of its taxing power, Congress could theoretically criminalize any home-based activity, including remote work or childcare, if it deemed such activities might circumvent federal oversight.