Watch Clarence Thomas Handle This Liberal Reporter Perfectly During a Visit on the...
Virginia's Anti-Gun Push Is Slowly Getting Bogged Down
Has the ‘Revolution’ Already Passed AOC By?
More Reflections on the Gravity of the Reflecting Pool; and Nicolle Wallace Is...
Appalachian Awakening: Rewriting American Music Culture
Democrats Now and Then
Battle Royale
Collateral Damage Was the Plan
Iran's Theocracy Has Given Way to an IRGC Military Dictatorship
The Sentence That Forever Changed History
The Electric Grid Is Actually America’s Most Important Homeland Security System
How a Hungarian Janitor Gave My Family Many Memorable Fourth of Julys
Does Germany's World Cup Loss Mean the U.S. Could Actually Win It All?
The Alaskan Supreme Court Just Gave Democrats a Lifeline With This Insane Ruling
JoAnna Mendoza's Tax Hike Record Is Catching Up to Her
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

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement