The Wall Street Journal featured both of The Buckeye Institute’s ongoing legal cases challenging the federal government’s ban on home distilling in an editorial published April 21. The editorial discussed recent developments in McNutt v. U.S. Department of Justice, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that Congress’s taxing power does not justify a ban on home distilling, and examined how the government avoided addressing issues related to the Commerce Clause.
These cases could have broad implications for constitutional law and individual rights, as they test limits on federal authority under both taxation and commerce provisions.
In its analysis, The Wall Street Journal wrote: “The fly in this tasty beverage, however, is the Commerce Clause… The informed speculation is that the Justice Department wanted to avoid giving the Fifth Circuit—and then the Supreme Court—an opening to reconsider the limits of the Commerce Clause.”
The editorial also referenced another pending case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: Ream v. U.S. Department of Treasury. In this case, John Ream seeks permission to make small quantities of whiskey at home solely for personal use with his wife. According to his filing quoted by The Wall Street Journal: “John Ream is seeking to engage in a hobby that is as American as apple pie, and certainly a lot older: home distilling.”
Judge Edith Jones wrote for a unanimous panel in McNutt v. U.S. Department of Justice: “Preventing activity lest it give rise to tax evasion places no limit whatsoever on Congress’s power under the taxation clause.”
According to the official website, The Buckeye Institute depends on private funding from individuals, corporations, and foundations; has offices on Capitol Square in Columbus; works to promote free-market public policy through research and data analysis; concentrates efforts within Ohio while promoting free-market ideas nationally; aids policymakers with research supporting free-market principles; and operates as a nonprofit classified under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
The editorial concluded by noting that “the Fifth Circuit ruling was a victory for the Constitution” and suggested that “the Sixth Circuit can do one better by setting up the Commerce Clause for another review by the Justices.”
