A federal judge in Texas has ruled that an 1868 law banning home distilling was unconstitutional.
In his ruling Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman sided with lawyers for the Hobby Distillers Association, a group that advocates for legalizing the production of distilled spirits such as whiskey and bourbon for personal consumption, arguing that the 156-year-old prohibition exceeds Congress’s taxing power and violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
“Indeed, the Constitution was written to ensure that society would not forget the clear limitations imposed on a government of the people, by the people,” Pittman wrote. “The judiciary must declare when its peer branch oversteps its constitutional authority. Congress has done just that here.”
Judge Pittman issued a permanent injunction preventing the U.S. government from enforcing the ban against members of the Hobby Distillers Association, and postponed ruling for 14 days to allow the government to seek a stay at the appeals court level.
Arizona rancher George Alan Kelly has charges dropped in shooting death of immigrant
A federal judge in Texas has ruled that an 1868 law banning home distilling was unconstitutional. (iStock)
Anyone who violates the home distilling ban could be fined up to $10,000 and/or face up to five years in prison.
“We’re not going to sell it,” said Devin Watkins, a Texas-based hobbyist group lawyer at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank. He told Reuters. The ruling “respects our clients’ rights to live under a government with limited powers.”
The hobby group, which represents the plaintiffs, and four of its 1,300 members filed a lawsuit in December against the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau and the Department of Justice, arguing that government regulation cannot extend to activities that occur within a private home.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau is a division of the Treasury Department that regulates and collects taxes on alcohol, while the Department of Justice can prosecute any felony offenses.
Anyone who violates the home distilling ban could be fined up to $10,000 and/or face up to five years in prison. (AP Photo/Damien Dvarganes)
“This decision is a victory for individual liberty and federalism,” said Dan Greenberg, an attorney for the Competitive Enterprises Association. “We are pleased that the Court found the ban on home distillation unconstitutional and blocked enforcement of the ban against our clients. More broadly, the Court’s decision is a reminder that, as Americans, we live under a government with limited powers.”
Pittman said three of the plaintiffs failed to prove they faced a credible threat of prosecution without an injunction, but that the group and one of its members, Scott McNutt, met their burden of proving they would be harmed if the ban wasn’t blocked.
McNutt received an unsolicited letter from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau stating that he could face civil and criminal charges after it was discovered he may have purchased ingredients that could be used to make distilled spirits.
The Justice Department argues that the ban is a valid measure enacted by Congress to protect the huge revenue the government receives from taxes on distilled spirits by restricting where distilleries can be located.
Tennessee Judge Refuses to Release Covenant School Shooter Documents
The Competitive Enterprise Institute filed the lawsuit in December against the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau and the Department of Justice. (Luke Charette/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
But Pittman said the ban was not a valid exercise of Congress’ taxing power because it would not raise revenue and would “only legally facilitate a crime.”
“A ban on the possession of home stills for distilling potable alcohol may be expedient in protecting liquor tax revenues, but it is not clearly enough linked to the positive power to levy and collect taxes,” the judge wrote.
Click here to get the FOX News app
The judge said the ban on home distillation of alcohol is outside of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. He said the ban “is not a ‘blanket’ regulatory scheme because there are many aspects of the alcohol industry that Congress has not addressed.”
“While the federal government has become increasingly eager to expand the scope of its power over the past century, this case shows that there are limits to government power,” Watkins, an attorney for the Texas-based hobbyist group at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank, said in a statement.
“If the government appeals this ruling to a higher court, we expect that limitation to be clarified.”
Reuters contributed to this report.
