If you search for “home still” on Amazon, you’ll see a bunch of products clearly advertised as tools for making wine. However, while it is legal to brew beer, cider or wine at home for your own consumption or to share with friends, producing distilled spirits without a license remains a federal felony punishable by up to five years in prison, a $10,000 fine, or both. Punishment.
A federal judge in Texas ruled last week that the law was unconstitutional. In addition to potentially protecting at least some DIY distillers from dire threats, the decision also offers hope of limiting the power of the federal government, which has expanded far beyond the limited and enumerated powers granted by the Constitution.
“This decision is a victory for individual liberty and federalism,” said Dan Greenberg, general counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which represents enthusiasts challenging the home distilling ban. He noted that the ruling “reminds us that as Americans we live under a government with limited power.”
It’s easy to forget, given the chilling arrogance displayed in an unsolicited letter that one of the plaintiffs in the case, Scott McNutt, received from the Treasury Department’s Alcohol, Tobacco, Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) at this point. The TTB said it learned McNutt “may have purchased a still capable of producing alcohol,” warning that “illegal production of distilled alcohol is a criminal offense” and noting possible penalties.
To avoid these penalties, anyone who wants to concentrate alcohol in fermented beverages must first obtain the necessary federal permits, the TTB explains. But home breweries cannot obtain these licenses.
The government believes that this policy is justified because of the need to protect federal revenue by preventing tax evasion. But U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman concluded that the challenged provisions, which apply to noncommercial producers who owe no such taxes, cannot be counted as taxes or used to achieve that goal. “Necessary and appropriate” means.
One of the laws criminalizes “distillation in prohibited premises,” while another prohibits distillation in “any dwelling.” Pittman noted that the regulations “make no reference to any mechanisms or processes to protect revenue.” While the “Prohibition on Possession of Household Stills” Designed to Produce Alcoholic Beverages “may be convenient To protect tax revenue,” he said, “that’s not a clear enough corollary to the positive power of taxation and taxation.
Pittman also rejected the administration’s argument that the ban was authorized by the power to regulate interstate commerce, a power often cited by Congress to justify legislation. He pointed out that “none of these provisions will[s] Prohibited Practices in Interstate Commerce.
The government believes that home distilling “generally has a significant impact on interstate commerce”. But Pittman said that to justify regulating non-commercial activities under the “substantial impact” test one would need to show that it was necessary to enforce “a comprehensive statute that ostensibly regulates commerce”, which was not the case in this case.
In this regard, Pittman argued, the home distillation ban differs from the medical marijuana ban upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005, which was considered part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme established by the Controlled Substances Act. Justice Clarence Thomas disagreed with the decision, warning that its logic would allow Congress to “regulate almost anything.”
However, as Pittman sees it, the Commerce Clause is still not quite the blank check Congress hoped it would be. He issued a permanent injunction barring the government from enforcing the home brewing ban on McNutt or other members of the Texas Amateur Brewers Association.
“While the federal government has become more eager to expand the scope of its powers over the last century, this case demonstrates that the government’s power is limited,” said CEI attorney Devin Watkins. “We expect that should the government appeal this decision to a higher court, Clarify these limitations.”
© Copyright 2024 Creators Syndicate Inc.
