The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled Friday that a federal ban on home distilling, a Reconstruction-era law dating to July 1868, violates the Constitution, handing a win to a small nonprofit and four of its members who argued Americans should be free to distill spirits at home without facing prison time.

The decision upheld a July 2024 ruling by U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman in Fort Worth, Texas, and marks the first time a federal appeals court has declared the ban beyond Congress's power. Violators of the nearly 158-year-old law faced up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

The ruling lands at a moment when federal courts are increasingly willing to draw hard lines around what Washington can and cannot do. And in this case, the line is sharp: Congress cannot criminalize a private, in-home activity simply because it might make tax collection harder.

What the court said, and why it matters

Circuit Judge Edith Hollan Jones wrote the opinion for a three-judge panel. She found the ban was not a legitimate exercise of Congress's taxing authority and did not qualify as "necessary and proper" to carrying out that function. As the New York Post reported, Jones wrote that the ban actually reduced tax revenue by preventing distilling in the first place, the opposite of what a law designed to support tax collection should do.

Jones drew a contrast with other federal laws that regulate the manufacture and labeling of distilled spirits. Those laws let distilling happen and then collect taxes on the output. The home distilling ban, by contrast, simply criminalized the activity outright.

Her sharpest point went to the government's broader theory of authority. Jones wrote:

"Without any limiting principle, the government's theory would violate this court's obligation to read the Constitution carefully to avoid creating a general federal authority akin to the police power."

That sentence carries real weight. Under the government's logic, Jones said, Congress could criminalize virtually any in-home activity that might escape the notice of tax collectors, including remote work and home-based businesses. The court was unwilling to open that door.

The Washington Times noted that the federal government now has 90 days to seek Supreme Court review of the decision, a timeline that could push the case into the national spotlight later this year.

The case behind the ruling

The lawsuit was brought by the nonprofit Hobby Distillers Association and four of its 1,300 members. The group argued that people should be free to distill spirits at home, whether as a hobby or for personal consumption, without facing a federal felony charge.

The defendants were the U.S. Department of Justice and the Treasury Department's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. Neither agency offered an immediate comment after the ruling. The DOJ had no statement, and the tax bureau did not respond to a request for comment.

The original 1868 law was passed during Reconstruction, in part to thwart liquor tax evasion at a time when the federal government badly needed revenue. Whatever its justification then, the court found it could not survive constitutional scrutiny now.

The case has broader implications at a time when the Supreme Court is taking up major constitutional disputes over the boundaries of federal power.

District court set the stage

Judge Pittman's July 2024 ruling in Fort Worth laid the groundwork. Fox News reported that Pittman found the ban exceeded Congress's taxing power and also violated the Constitution's Commerce Clause. He issued a permanent injunction blocking enforcement of the ban against members of the Hobby Distillers Association.

Pittman stayed his own ruling for 14 days to allow the government to appeal, which it did, sending the case to the 5th Circuit. The appeals court's Friday decision now affirms Pittman's core conclusion: Congress overstepped.

Competitive Enterprise Institute lawyer Dan Greenberg, who was involved in the district court phase, called the original ruling "a victory for personal freedoms and for federalism." That framing carried through to the appeals level.

The pattern of federal courts pushing back on congressional overreach extends well beyond distilling. Readers following recent appeals-court battles involving the federal government will recognize the theme: judges demanding that Washington show its constitutional homework.

A win for liberty, and limits

Andrew Grossman, the attorney who argued the nonprofit's appeal, called the decision "an important victory for individual liberty" that lets the plaintiffs "pursue their passion to distill fine beverages in their homes."

Grossman added a lighter note: "I look forward to sampling their output."

Devin Watkins, another lawyer representing the Hobby Distillers Association, described the ruling in an interview as an important decision about the limits of federal power. That framing matters. The case was never really about moonshine. It was about whether Washington can turn any private activity into a felony simply by invoking the tax code.

The question of how far Congress can stretch its authority is one that keeps surfacing in different forms across the political landscape, from war powers to regulatory enforcement.

What comes next

The Department of Justice now faces a decision: accept the loss or ask the Supreme Court to weigh in. The 90-day window to petition for review gives the government time, but the 5th Circuit's reasoning is broad enough that letting it stand would set a real precedent on the limits of the Necessary and Proper Clause as applied to Congress's taxing power.

If the DOJ does seek Supreme Court review, the case would arrive at a high court already grappling with fundamental questions about federal authority. And the factual backdrop, a 158-year-old ban on making whiskey at home, gives the justices a clean vehicle to address the principle without the political heat that surrounds other separation-of-powers fights.

Meanwhile, members of the Hobby Distillers Association remain in legal limbo. Judge Pittman's original injunction blocked enforcement against the group's members, but the broader ban technically stays on the books until the appeals process concludes. How aggressively, or cautiously, federal agencies enforce the law in the interim remains an open question, especially given that both the DOJ and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau declined to comment.

The ruling also raises questions for a Congress already under scrutiny over the scope of its powers and priorities. Lawmakers could, in theory, rewrite the statute to survive constitutional review, perhaps by regulating and taxing home distilling rather than banning it outright. Whether anyone on Capitol Hill has the appetite for that fight is another matter.

For 158 years, the federal government told Americans they could brew beer at home, make wine at home, but not distill spirits at home, and backed that distinction with the threat of a felony. The 5th Circuit just said the Constitution doesn't support it.

When the government's best argument for a law is "we've always done it this way," courts are right to ask whether "always" and "constitutional" are the same thing. They aren't.