John Cornyn Will Be a Texas Thom Tillis and That’s Awful
We Know Who Donated to Eric Swalwell
Scott Jennings Shredded This Former Dem Rep's Iran Cheerleading on CNN Last Night
Here Are the Two People DNI Gabbard Issued Criminal Referrals for Concerning...
Idiot Math
Pocahontas Wants to Spend Jeff Bezos’s Money
The Pope, Three Cardinals, and the Iran War
In Israel, Garbage Trucks Bring the Garbage
The Implosion of Eric Swalwell: What Was He Thinking?
Debunking Five Tax Day Myths
My Advice to (Young) Women
Immigration in America: Legal Pathways, Border Reality, and the Fight Over Who Belongs
Trump’s Hormuz Masterstroke: How American Energy Dominance Is Exposing China’s Fatal Weakn...
New York Can’t Claim 'Choice' While Silencing It
U.S. Secret Service Seized 13 Card Skimmers in Dallas, Saving $13.5M in Fraud
Tipsheet

Appeals Court Just Struck Down 158-Year-Old Nanny State Law

Appeals Court Just Struck Down 158-Year-Old Nanny State Law
AP Photo/John Raby

The New Orleans-based Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday delivered a significant victory against government overreach and nanny-state nonsense, ruling that the 158-year-old ban on homemade liquor is unconstitutional.

Advertisement

The ruling is the result of a lawsuit filed by the Hobby Distillers Association and four hobbyists who sought to make spirits at home for personal use. The panel held that Congress went too far by criminalizing home distillers under its taxing power.

The law did more than just regulate homemade spirits. It prohibited people from having distilled spirits plants in a home, a connected shed, a yard, or an enclosure. Those who violate the law could face up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

The law dates back to 1868, when Congress sought to protect federal excise-tax revenue on distilled spirits. However, Judge Edith Jones argued, “Not only do they prohibit at-home distilleries, but in so doing, they amount to an anti-revenue provision that prevents distilled spirits from coming into existence.”

Advertisement

The case hinged on a foundational constitutional question: Does Congress possess the authority to ban peaceful activity in the home to make it easier to tax it? The plaintiffs contended that Congress can tax distilled spirits, but cannot use that authority to eliminate home production of spirits before the taxable product even exists.

The federal government argued that home distilleries could make it easier to conceal their activities or hide the strength of the spirits, making it harder to detect tax evasion.

However, the panel did not buy this argument. It noted that the law was not actually a tax measure. Congress’ power to impose taxes only allows it to raise revenue, not impose a ban that leaves citizens with no lawful options.  “[U]nder the government’s logic, Congress may criminalize nearly any at-home conduct only because it has the possibility of concealing taxable activity,” Jones wrote in her opinion.

Advertisement

This ruling is a major win for liberty because it reaffirms that the federal government’s power over people’s personal conduct is limited. Congress should never be empowered to exercise police power over people’s private, personal lives if they are not violating the rights of others.

To put it simply, if a guy wants to make his own whiskey, it should be none of the government’s business. Laws like these only grant the state authority that it was never meant to have; it’s one of the reasons why our government has become so bloated that it can stick its nose into people’s private lives.

The ruling only applies to the federal law, meaning that state and local governments can still regulate home distilleries.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos