A federal judge has struck down a 158-year-old federal ban that prohibited the home distilling of alcoholic spirits for personal employ, ruling that the prohibition is unconstitutional.
The decision targets a long-standing provision of the Internal Revenue Code that dates back to the Reconstruction era. While federal law has long permitted individuals to produce beer and wine for their own consumption without a permit, the production of distilled spirits—commonly referred to as moonshining—remained a federal crime regardless of whether the alcohol was intended for sale or personal use.
The court found that the federal government’s authority to tax alcohol does not extend to a total ban on the personal production of spirits. The ruling establishes that the distinction made between the home production of fermented beverages, such as beer and wine, and distilled spirits lacked a rational basis and exceeded the scope of constitutional federal power.
Under the invalidated regulation, any individual wishing to distill spirits was required to obtain a permit from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). This requirement applied even to those producing small quantities for non-commercial purposes, making the act of home distilling a felony under federal law.
The ruling does not legalize the sale of home-distilled spirits. The federal government maintains its authority to regulate the commerce of alcohol, including the collection of excise taxes and the enforcement of safety and labeling standards for any spirits introduced into the stream of commerce. The decision specifically addresses the act of production for personal consumption, not the distribution or sale of the product.
Legal challenges to the ban have historically centered on the argument that the prohibition is an arbitrary exercise of power. The court’s decision aligns the legal status of spirit distillation with that of other home-brewed alcoholic beverages, removing the criminal penalty for those who distill alcohol exclusively for their own use.
The Department of Justice has not yet announced whether it will appeal the ruling to a higher court.
