The Buckeye Institute announced on Apr. 21 that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has upheld the federal ban on home distilling, invoking Congress’s taxing power and the Necessary and Proper Clause. This decision contrasts with a recent ruling by the Fifth Circuit, which overturned the longstanding federal prohibition, creating a circuit split likely to be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The issue is significant because it highlights differing interpretations among federal appellate courts regarding individual rights and Congressional authority over alcohol production at home. The outcome could have broad implications for how such laws are enforced nationwide.
Robert Alt, President and Chief Executive Officer of The Buckeye Institute and an attorney representing John Ream in this case, said, “John Ream will seek Supreme Court review of this decision, and looks forward to being vindicated.” Andrew M. Grossman, Senior Legal Fellow at The Buckeye Institute and a partner at BakerHostetler who presented oral argument in court, said, “This decision upholding the federal ban on home distilling creates a circuit split, and we anticipate the U.S. Supreme Court resolving the conflict between the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Sixth Circuits.”
The Buckeye Institute represents John Ream in Ream v. U.S. Department of Treasury as well as several other individuals in McNutt v. U.S. Department of Justice related to similar issues.
According to the official website, The Buckeye Institute is funded privately by individuals, corporations, and foundations; operates offices on Capitol Square in Columbus; promotes free-market public policy through research; concentrates efforts mainly in Ohio while advancing free-market ideas nationally; provides policymakers with research to support these principles; and is classified as a nonprofit under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
As both sides prepare for potential review by the nation’s highest court, observers expect that any forthcoming decision could set an important precedent affecting not only hobbyists but also broader questions about regulatory powers.
