The Newark Advocate first published this article.

The U.S. Supreme Court will review the constitutionality of a federal-home distilling ban that a Newark brewer has been fighting for years. 

A pair of groups – Newark's John Ream and the Hobby Distillers Association – argue that the ban on home distilling, imposed in 1868, is unconstitutional because it's not within Congress's taxing power. Both parties asked the justices to review the case so that they can distill spirits at home for personal use and deliver a sweeping ruling on the matter after lower courts differed on the ban.

"Our country's founders would be rolling over in their graves to learn that a pastime in which even George Washington partook, which is as American as apple pie and certainly a lot older, has quite absurdly been turned into a federal crime," Buckeye Institute President and CEO Robert Alt said in a statement. "The Buckeye Institute is thrilled that the U.S. Supreme Court took the McNutt case and our clients will have their day in court."

The Supreme Court's Oct. 19 decision granting a review comes after the 5th and 6th Circuits issued conflicting rulings in two similar home distilling cases. In April, the 6th Circuit, ruling on Ream's case, upheld the ban while the 5th Circuit called it unconstitutional, siding with the Hobby Distillers Association.

The justices will review that 5th Circuit decision, likely doing so in early 2027 before sharing a ruling that summer.

"This case is important not only for would-be home distillers, but for everyone concerned about the legitimate constitutional limits on the federal government's authority," Buckeye Institute Senior Legal Fellow Andrew Grossman said in a statement.

Federal law prohibits people from producing distilled spirits at home, in part to prevent tax evasion. Another concern involves safety because distilling can involve flammable liquids and other materials that require specific care.

People who distill at home face penalties of up to five years in prison and a fine up to $10,000. When Ream sued the Treasury Department in 2024, he said he didn't want to break the law but wanted to fight the ban because he believes the federal government shouldn't "have this level of intrusion into my home and hobbies."

In court records, Treasury attorneys argued a tax on distilled spirits is a "first lien" that attaches when it's created, giving the government an interest in tax revenue from them once they're produced. They also said Ream hasn't alleged that an inability to distill at home is causing or will cause him any harm.