The Supreme Court Will Hear a Challenge to the Federal Home-Distilling Ban. Here's Where Things Stand.

Updated November 3, 2026. This is a fast-moving case; we'll update this post as the Court acts.

In September we wrote about the Fifth Circuit ruling that held the federal ban on distilling at home unconstitutional, and about a bill in Congress that would change it. Since then, the case has moved to the top of the system.

On October 19, 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the government's appeal in Department of Justice v. McNutt, No. 26-204. Here's what that means, and what it doesn't.

What the Court will decide

The Court took the question the government asked: whether the ban on distilling spirits "in any dwelling house" or "in any shed, yard, or inclosure connected with any dwelling house" is "necessary and proper for carrying into execution Congress's enumerated power to lay and collect taxes".

In plain terms: Congress can tax liquor. Can it also ban distilling at home as a way of making sure that tax gets collected?

No argument date has been set yet. SCOTUSblog expects argument in early 2027 and a decision by late June or early July 2027.

Two appeals courts disagree

  • The Fifth Circuit (covering Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi) ruled in April 2026 that, "while venerable, the statute violates the Constitution's Taxation and Necessary and Proper clauses".
  • The Sixth Circuit (covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee) ruled the other way in Ream v. U.S. Department of the Treasury later that month: "The home-distilling ban was lawful when enacted, and remains so today".

The two courts agreed that the taxing power alone can't support the ban. They split on whether the Necessary and Proper Clause can. The Supreme Court's own rules list a conflict between federal appeals courts "on the same important matter" as one of the things it considers in deciding whether to take a case, and the government's petition pointed to exactly that conflict. The Court hasn't acted on the Ream petition. Ream's lawyers at the Buckeye Institute say the Court is holding it until McNutt is decided.

What the Fifth Circuit ruling does, and doesn't, do

This is the part that's easy to get wrong.

The ruling did not make home distilling legal in Texas, Louisiana or Mississippi. The court order in the case is an injunction that protects specific parties: Scott McNutt and the three other individual plaintiffs (the Fifth Circuit held that all of them had standing to sue), and the Hobby Distillers Association and its members. Who counts as a member for this purpose is a question for a lawyer, not this post. The Fifth Circuit's opinion also binds federal courts in those three states as precedent, but that isn't the same as a change in the law for everyone.

Even the plaintiffs say so. The Hobby Distillers Association wrote after the ruling: "This decision does NOT mean you can legally fire up a still at home without oversight," and pointed out that federal permit requirements, federal excise tax and state law all still apply.

We haven't found any court order putting the ruling on hold, so the injunction protecting the plaintiffs remains in effect while the Supreme Court considers the case.

What hasn't changed

  • The federal ban is still on the books. It says no distilled spirits plant "shall be located in any dwelling house, in any shed, yard, or inclosure connected with any dwelling house", and TTB's regulations say flatly: "A person may not produce distilled spirits at home for personal use".
  • TTB's home-distilling page hasn't changed. As of November 3, 2026, it still says "Federal law strictly prohibits individuals from producing distilled spirits at home," and it was last updated March 17, 2025. We haven't found a public TTB statement on the ruling or the Supreme Court's decision to hear the case.
  • The penalties are still in the statute. For distilling on prohibited premises, the law says a person "shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, for each such offense".
  • State law is separate. A Supreme Court ruling would only decide the federal question. States make their own rules. In Texas, for example, a 2025 Texas House bill analysis said home production of distilled spirits "remains illegal" there, and the bill to change that didn't become law.
  • The ban is old. Both appeals courts date it to an 1868 law; the government's petition dates it to 1866. Either way, it goes back to the 1860s.

And the bill in Congress?

The Freedom to Home Distill Act, H.R. 10157, was introduced on August 27, 2026, and sent to the House Ways and Means Committee. It has four cosponsors and no action since. This Congress ends on January 3, 2027. Any bill that hasn't become law by then dies, and would have to be reintroduced, with a new number, in the next Congress.

What to watch

  1. Briefs. The government files its opening brief first, then the plaintiffs respond, then the government replies. Outside groups file friend-of-the-court briefs shortly after the side they support.
  2. The argument date, expected in early 2027.
  3. The decision, likely by late June or early July 2027.
  4. TTB, if it updates its guidance.

We'll update this post as each of those happens.

This post is news and general information, not legal advice. It doesn't cover making spirits. Federal law still bans distilling spirits at home, state laws apply separately, and only a court or a lawyer can tell you how a ruling applies to you.

Sources: Supreme Court docket, No. 26-204 · Supreme Court docket, No. 26-93 (Ream) · SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court agrees to consider federal ban on home distilleries · Fifth Circuit opinion, No. 24-10760 · Sixth Circuit opinion, Ream, No. 25-3259 · Congressional Research Service, LSB11459 · Government's cert petition · 26 U.S.C. 5178 · 26 U.S.C. 5601 · 27 CFR 19.51 · TTB: Home distilling · Hobby Distillers Association: HDA wins in Fifth Circuit · Texas HB 2278 bill analysis (2025) · Congress.gov: H.R. 10157 · Constitution Center · Supreme Court Rule 10 · Supreme Court Rule 25 · Supreme Court Rule 37 · Buckeye Institute: McNutt v. U.S. Department of Justice · Library of Congress: Bills at the end of a Congress · Supreme Court: Question presented, No. 26-204

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Whiskey Barrel Weekend in Coeur d'Alene: What a Master Class Taught Us About Tasting

Image
Some whiskey events are a room full of tables and plastic cups. The Coeur d'Alene Resort's Whiskey Barrel Weekend , presented with Maker's Mark, is not that. We spent September 18 and 19 on the lake in North Idaho, and it was one of the best-run spirits weekends we've been to. Here's what it was like, and the one thing from the master class that changed how we taste. Friday: Fuego & Oak The weekend opened with Fuego & Oak at the Hagadone Event Center: tomahawk steaks hung over an open flame grill on the terrace with Lake Coeur d'Alene behind them, tacos, small bites and appetizers going around, and a 120-proof pour to match. It's the kind of evening that sets a high bar for the rest of a weekend, and the rest of the weekend cleared it. Saturday: the Whiskey Master Class The master class was the highlight. An hour, a four-glass flight served blind , a board of smoked provolone, gouda, and cheddar with whiskey cheese straws, an...
Read more

A Federal Court Just Ruled the Home Distilling Ban Unconstitutional (Here's What Actually Changed)

Update, November 3, 2026: The Supreme Court agreed on October 19, 2026 to hear the government's appeal ( Department of Justice v. McNutt , No. 26-204), so the petition this post describes is no longer pending. We've also corrected this post. An earlier version said the federal ban "has been struck down" in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. That overstated it: the ruling protects the named plaintiffs and the Hobby Distillers Association's members through a court injunction, and binds federal courts in those states as precedent. It did not make home distilling legal there. For where things stand now, see The Supreme Court Will Hear a Challenge to the Federal Home-Distilling Ban . Six months ago, almost to the day, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a ruling that every home distiller should know about — and that almost nobody's explaining correctly. On April 10, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided McNutt v. U.S. Departme...
Read more

The Freedom to Home Distill Act: What H.R. 10157 Would Change (and What It Wouldn't)

Update, November 3, 2026: We've updated this post. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the McNutt case, the bill's cosponsor count is corrected to four, the description of what the McNutt ruling covers is corrected, and the equipment section now describes the bill's product standard without practical advice. Earlier this month we covered the Fifth Circuit ruling that found the federal home-distilling ban unconstitutional. The courts aren't the only branch moving now. On August 27, Rep. Diana Harshbarger of Tennessee introduced H.R. 10157, the Freedom to Home Distill Act . It would put home distillers in the same category home brewers and winemakers have been in since 1978. It's a bill, not a law. Here's what it says, what the numbers mean in real bottles, and what it leaves alone. Why it exists In 1978, Congress changed the tax code to let adults make beer and wine at home, tax-free, for personal use: up to 200 gallons a year per household. Distilled ...
Read more