Skip to main content
KnowGovUnderstand. Power. Act.
← Data Lab

The Library

New

One story, all the way down.

High spirits: Supreme Court to decide fate of federal ban on home distilling

Challengers say the 1868 law enacted to tackle tax evasion exceeded Congress’ powers.

Sources (4)+7 copies· Oct 19, 1:37 PM to Oct 19, 5:14 PM

Read it

Every telling

their own versions

How it spread

11 articles
  1. firstNBC News
  2. firstSpokane Spokesman-Review
  3. firstU.S. News & World Report
  4. firstCBS News
  5. firstThe Atlanta Journal-Constitution
  6. firstThe Atlanta Journal-Constitution
  7. firstWTOP
  8. +3hNew York Post
  9. +3hNBC 5 Chicago
  10. +3hNBC10 Boston
  11. +4hFortune

Since

More like this

similar stories in the archive
Supreme Court to decide if 160-year-old home distilling ban is constitutionalThe Supreme Court said Monday it will consider whether the government can ban people from distilling spirits at home, after a lower panel declared restrictions dating back to the 1860s unconstitutional. The Trump administration urged the justices to get involved, saying the lower court took a “blinkered view” and its decision threatens the viability of...
The Hill1d agoSources (2)Whole story →
Could you soon make your own moonshine? SCOTUS takes up 160-year-old banThe Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to the Reconstruction-era ban on distilling alcohol in private homes. Why it matters: Americans can legally brew beer or make wine at home, but making whiskey, vodka or other spirits can land them in federal prison. The Supreme Court could change that. Driving the booze: SCOTUS will review Department…
SCOTUS Takes Up Cases On Race and School Admissions, Federal At-Home Distilling BanThe U.S. Supreme Court added to its 2026 docket on Monday two high-profile cases dealing with race and school admissions and a Reconstruction-era federal ban on at-home distilling. In its latest order list, the high court revealed that it has agreed to take up and hear arguments in Association for Education Fairness (AEF) v. Montgomery […]