A tale of 2 appeals courts on constitutionality of 158-year-old home distilling ban
A U.S. appeals courts has called a 158-year-old federal ban on home distilling a “necessary and proper” way of collecting taxes on home-brewed spirits, shortly after another appeals court concluded differently. (Photo from Shutterstock)
A U.S. appeals courts has called a 158-year-old federal ban on home distilling a “necessary and proper” way of collecting taxes on home-brewed spirits, shortly after another appeals court concluded differently.
On Tuesday, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Cincinnati voted 2-1 that the ban was constitutional. The ban was challenged by an Ohio brewery and taproom owner John Ream, who wanted to distill whiskey at home for his personal enjoyment.
In early April, the 5th Circuit at New Orleans concluded that the ban was unconstitutional and an “unnecessary and improper means” for Congress to excise tax, according to coverage by Reuters.
In the Tuesday vote, 6th Circuit Judge Andre Mathis dissented, noting that Ream lacked legal standing to sue in part because he didn’t show a credible threat that he would be prosecuted.
The U.S. Department of Justice defended the law and had no comment.
Ream plans to take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court and “looks forward to being vindicated,” his lawyer Robert Alt said in a statement.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
Topics: Career & Practice
Los Angeles law firm accused of unauthorized practice in Texas, Virginia, Arizona, Iowa and Michigan
Your Voice
What 75 conversations taught me about networking as an internationally trained lawyer
Podcasts
