The Scott Pelley Saga Is Over at CBS News, but Not the Melodramatics...
New 'American Options Doctrine' Would Transform US-Israel Relations
The Associated Press Is Married to Protecting Islam at Any Cost
Scott Pelley and Bari Weiss Respond to Pelley's Termination From CBS
You Just Thought You Hated HOAs Before
California’s New Congressional Map May Have Just Backfired on Gavin Newsom
This Democrat Just Stormed Out of Marco Rubio's House Hearing
Michigan Rapper Sentenced to 10 Years for $63M Mail Theft Scheme
Two Foreign NIH Researchers Charged With Smuggling Monkeypox Into U.S.
USDA Finds $13.3 Million in Potential Ohio SNAP Fraud
'Reconciliation 3.0' Is Almost Here – And It Might Include the SAVE America Act
Four Republicans Join Democrats As U.S. House Passes Iran War Powers Resolution
Detransitioner Chloe Cole Testifies on Devastating Effects of Transition
Kansas Woman Sentenced for $450K Benefits Fraud Using Dead Relative’s Identity
Yes, People Still Voted for Eric Swalwell
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