Staff Reports
John Ream, an Ohio brewery owner and former aerospace engineer, has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to settle a simple-sounding but huge question: can Congress still make it a federal felony to distill a single ounce of whiskey in your own kitchen? His petition, filed in July and now pending on the Court’s docket as No. 26‑93, asks the justices to fix a straight-up split between two federal appeals courts. One circuit said the law is dead weight; the other said it still carries felony teeth. This is about more than booze — it’s about whether Washington can reach into your home and turn a private hobby into a federal crime.
What Ream’s petition asks the Court to decide
The petition targets a Reconstruction‑era rule that bans operating a still in a dwelling and makes home distilling a federal felony. Ream and his lawyers argue the law exceeds Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and related Commerce Clause precedents. The Fifth Circuit struck down the ban as beyond federal reach, while the Sixth Circuit upheld it. That direct conflict is exactly what certiorari is for: to bring uniform rules to the country instead of patchwork law where your rights depend on your zip code.
Why the High Court might take the case
Courts love a circuit split, and the Supreme Court hears very few cases without one. This petition was distributed for the Court’s late‑September conference after a flurry of filings — the government filed a brief opposing review, a stack of amici showed up (including 15 states and several conservative and libertarian legal groups), and Ream filed a reply. If the justices grant review, they could reaffirm broad federal power or they could narrow precedents that let Washington regulate private, noncommercial conduct inside the home. Either result will have ripple effects beyond the liquor cabinet.
The bigger fight: federal power vs. private freedom
Look past the bottles and you see the real issue: how far may Congress reach to regulate ordinary private life? The law dates back to post‑Civil War efforts to tax distilled spirits and prevent evasion. That history mattered once, but it shouldn’t be a blank check for sweeping federal criminal penalties today. As Robert Alt of the Buckeye Institute put it bluntly: “It is perfectly legal to make beer at home or to make wine at home, but if you make even a single ounce of distilled spirits at home, it is a federal felony.” That contrast reads like a bad joke about inconsistent federal logic — unless you happen to be facing a felony charge.
What to watch next
The Supreme Court will either grant review and set new rules about the Taxing Clause, Necessary and Proper, and the Commerce Clause — or it will punt and leave the country divided. If the Court steps in, expect big briefs and sharp argument about precedent like Wickard and Raich. If it doesn’t, the bizarre result remains: hobbyists in some circuits could distill at home with no federal trouble, while others risk serious criminal penalties. Either way, this case puts the question plainly: should Washington still be allowed to criminalize harmless activity inside your own house? The justices will soon decide whether to answer that question for the whole country or let the split stand.
