A federal judge in Texas has ruled that an 1868 ban on home distilling is unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, in his ruling Wednesday, sided with lawyers for the Hobby Distillers Association that the 156-year-old ban exceeded Congress’ taxing power and violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Hobby Distillers Association is a group that advocates for the legalization of a person’s production of spirits such as whiskey and bourbon for their personal consumption.
“Indeed, the Constitution was written to prevent social amnesia of the definite limits it places on this government and by the people,” Pittman wrote. “This is where the judiciary must declare when its co-equal branches exceed their constitutional authority. Congress has done that here.”
Pittman issued a permanent injunction barring the US government from enforcing the ban against members of the Hobby Distillers Association. The judge also stayed his ruling for 14 days to allow the government to seek a stay at the appeals court level.
ARIZONA RANCHER, GEORGE ALAN KELLY HAS PICKED UP CHARGES IN IMMIGRANT STATE CASE
A federal judge in Texas ruled that an 1868 ban on home distilling is unconstitutional. (iStock)
People who violate the home distillation ban can face fines of up to $10,000 or five years in prison.
Devin Watkins, a lawyer for the Texas-based hobby group at the libertarian think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute, told Reuters that the ruling “respects our clients’ rights to live under a government with limited powers.”
The hobby group, which represented the plaintiffs, and four of its 1,300 members filed a lawsuit in December against the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau and the Justice Department, saying the government’s regulatory reach could not extend to activities inside a person’s home. .
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau is a division of the Treasury Department that regulates and collects alcohol taxes, while the Justice Department can prosecute any crime.
People who violate the home distillation ban can face fines of up to $10,000 or five years in prison. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)
“This decision is a victory for personal liberties and for federalism,” said Competitive Enterprise Institute attorney Dan Greenberg. “We are pleased to see that the court ruled that the ban on home distilling is unconstitutional — and that it blocked the ban’s enforcement against our customers. More broadly, the court’s decision reminds us that, as Americans, we live under a government of competent limited”.
Pittman said that while three of the individual plaintiffs failed to prove they faced a credible threat of prosecution without a warrant, the group and one of its members, Scott McNutt, had carried their burden of showing that they would be harmed if the ban had not been blocked.
McNutt received an unsolicited letter from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau saying he faced possible civil and criminal liability after learning he may have purchased materials that could be used to distill alcoholic beverages.
The Justice Department contends that the ban was a valid measure created by Congress to protect the substantial revenue the government collects from taxes on distilled spirits by limiting where plants can be located.
TENNESSEE JUDGE DENIES PUBLIC RELEASE OF BELINDE SCHOOL SHOOTER’S WRITINGS
The Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a lawsuit in December against the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau and the Department of Justice. (Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Pittman, however, said prohibition was not a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power because it did not raise revenue and “did nothing more than legally ferment a crime.”
“While the prohibition of the possession of a house still intended for distilling spirits may be convenient to protect the revenue from taxes on spirits, it is not a sufficiently clear consequence of the positive power of levying and collecting taxes,” the judge wrote.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The judge said the ban on home distillation also could not be covered by Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. He said prohibition “is not a “comprehensive” regulatory scheme because there are many aspects of the alcohol industry that Congress has left untouched.
“While the federal government has become more enthusiastic about expanding the scope of its powers over the past century, this case shows that there are limits to government authority,” Watkins, a lawyer for the Texas-based hobby group at the libertarian think tank. The Institute of Competitive Enterprises said in a statement.
“If the government appeals this decision to a higher court, we look forward to illuminating those boundaries.”
Reuters contributed to this report.