Why Thomas Massie's Ex-Girlfriend Came Forward With This Hush Money Story
These Students Want to Cancel a Speaker for Not Being Part of Their...
Bill Cassidy Goes After His Trump-Endorsed Opponent Over DEI – It's Not Going...
Three Reasons Why Virginia’s Redistricting Amendment Should Fail
The NY Times Continues Flailing Over Kristof's Column; Politico Warns Democrats Might Turn...
Mall Brats
Georgia Pro-Gun Bill's Veto Doesn't Mean What Anti-Gunners Seem to Think
We Now Know Why Brigitte Macron Slapped the French President Last Year
Nick Shirley Went to Cuba to Investigate Life Under Communism. Here's What He...
Fentanyl Playground: LA Is a Walking Campaign Ad for Spencer Pratt
Florida Jury Convicts HealthSplash Founder in $1 Billion Medicare Fraud Scheme
U.S. Supreme Court Temporarily Restores Nationwide Mail Access to Abortion Pill
Mexican National Sentenced to 11 Years for Running Major U.S.-Mexico Border Smuggling Oper...
2018 West MI Woman of the Year Sentenced for Allegedly Stealing $1.4M Meant...
Trump Has the Cards for an AI Deal With China
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