Where the law is heading

After more than 150 years, the federal home-distilling ban is being tested on three fronts at once: in the courts, in Congress and in the states.

Timeline

Hobby Distillers Association v. TTB (McNutt)

Who sued

The Hobby Distillers Association is a Texas-based nonprofit that advocates legal home distilling for personal use; it had about 1,300 members nationwide when the case began. Four members joined as plaintiffs: Scott McNutt, Rick Morris, Thomas Cowdrey and John Prince.^[3] McNutt had received a letter from the TTB saying it had learned he may have bought a still or distilling equipment and warning that unlawful production is a crime.^[3]

The district court (July 2024)

Judge Mark T. Pittman dismissed three of the individual plaintiffs for lack of standing, but declared 26 U.S.C. § 5178(a)(1)(B) and § 5601(a)(6) unconstitutional. He permanently enjoined the government from enforcing them, or any regulation under them, against McNutt, the association and the association's members. He held that the ban exceeded both Congress's taxing power and its commerce power.^[3]

The Fifth Circuit (April 10, 2026)

A unanimous panel, Circuit Judges Edith H. Jones and James Graves and a district judge from the Southern District of Texas sitting by designation, ruled for the hobbyists. Judge Jones wrote the opinion.^[9,4]

• All four individual plaintiffs had standing, so the court reversed the partial dismissal and affirmed the injunction as modified.^[9]
• The ban is not a "necessary and proper" way to collect the tax because it raises no revenue: it stops people from making spirits that could otherwise be taxed.^[9,3]
• If Congress could ban an activity merely because it might hide taxable conduct, the court asked, what could it not ban? Home businesses and remote work, it suggested, could be next.^[9]
• The government did not challenge the district court's Commerce Clause ruling on appeal.^[3]

What the ruling does, and does not, do

• It protects the plaintiffs and Hobby Distillers Association members from federal enforcement of the location ban and its penalty.^[3]
• As precedent it binds federal courts in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi only.^[4]
• It does not repeal the spirits tax, still registration or the permit system, and it does not change any state or local law. The courts struck down only the location ban and its penalty.^[3,12]

Ream v. U.S. Department of the Treasury (Sixth Circuit)

John Ream, a former aerospace engineer who runs a brewery and taproom in Ohio, wants to distill whiskey at home. The district court dismissed his case for lack of standing.^[10]

On April 21, 2026 a divided panel reversed on standing but upheld the ban. Judge Kethledge, joined by Judge Siler, held that the ban is "a necessary and proper means of collecting the federal excise tax on distilled spirits."^[10] The court reasoned that:

• tax evasion on liquor was rampant when the 1868 law was passed, and the ban was written to stop it;
• stills are easier to hide in homes, and homes are much harder to search at all hours than bonded premises;
• even if a few home distillers paid the tax, a ban shifts drinking from untaxed to taxed spirits and so increases revenue overall.^[10]

Judge Mathis dissented on standing alone, concluding that Ream could not sue yet, and did not reach the constitutional question.^[10] The decision binds federal courts in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.^[4]

The circuit split and the Supreme Court

Both sides asked the Supreme Court to settle the conflict. Ream petitioned first (No. 26-93); the government then petitioned in McNutt (No. 26-204) and urged the Court to take that case.^[11,1,2] On October 19, 2026 the Court granted the government's petition.^[1] It took the question as the government framed it:

"Whether the prohibition on the production of distilled spirits in particular locations, including 'in any dwelling house' or 'in any shed, yard, or inclosure connected with any dwelling house,' 26 U.S.C. 5178(a)(1)(B), is necessary and proper for carrying into execution Congress's enumerated power to lay and collect taxes."^[3]

Ream's petition was neither granted nor denied that day.^[13,11] The Court often holds a related petition until it decides the main case.

What could happen

• The Court reverses the Fifth Circuit. The ban stands nationwide as a valid use of the taxing power, and the injunction protecting the plaintiffs and association members would likely fall with the judgment.
• The Court affirms. The location ban could no longer be defended as a tax-collection measure anywhere in the country. The excise tax and the permit system would remain, and Congress would still have to decide how, or whether, to tax and regulate home distilling, or try to rest a ban on another power such as the Commerce Clause.^[4]
• Something narrower. The Court could also decide on standing or other narrower grounds.

These are general possibilities, not predictions. The Commerce Clause question is not before the Court, because the government did not raise it on appeal.^[3]

Congress: H.R. 10157, the Freedom to Home Distill Act

Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.) introduced the bill on August 27, 2026 with original cosponsors Riley Moore (R-W.Va.) and Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.); Greg Steube (R-Fla.) and Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) signed on days later. It was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee.^[5] As introduced, the bill would:^[14]

• exempt spirits made at a "home distillery establishment" from the federal excise tax;
• define that as a distillery in the owner's dwelling house, or a connected shed, yard or enclosure, making spirits solely for personal or family use;
• cap production at 10 proof gallons a year for a one-adult household and 20 proof gallons for two or more adults, with "adult" meaning 21 or older (or a higher local drinking age);
• forbid selling the spirits, or handing them to anyone for resale;
• exempt home stills from the still registration and notice rules, and remove the § 5601(a)(6) felony for a home distillery establishment;
• direct Treasury to allow stills to be sold for home use only if they have a pressure-release valve and a vacuum-relief valve and hold no more than 50 gallons;
• take effect for spirits produced, and stills sold, after December 31, 2026.

The bill would change federal law only; state laws on home distilling would still apply.

The Congressional Research Service has described the options in front of Congress: permit and tax home distilling on the model of the beer and wine exemptions, or keep the ban and tie it more firmly to another constitutional power.^[4]

The states

State permission does not cancel the federal ban. Anyone outside the protection of the McNutt injunction is still subject to federal law, wherever they live.^[18,3]

The TTB's response

• In court: the government appealed the 2024 ruling, sought rehearing by the full Fifth Circuit (denied June 9, 2026) and then asked the Supreme Court to reverse.^[3,1]
• In Ream: it agreed the question deserved Supreme Court review but argued that McNutt was the better case to take.^[2]
• To the public: its Home Distilling page, last updated March 17, 2025, still says federal law "strictly prohibits" producing spirits at home, and its regulation at 27 CFR 19.51 is unchanged.^[18,19] We have not found any public TTB guidance on how it applies the injunction to association members.
• Permits: it does not consider distilling permits for home addresses.^[12]

What to watch next

• The Supreme Court docket for No. 26-204: briefing, the argument date and, by mid-2027, the decision.^[1] Our case tracker follows every filing.
• Whether the Court acts on Ream's petition, No. 26-93.^[11]
• Any hearing or markup of H.R. 10157 in Ways and Means.^[5]
• New state bills when legislatures meet in 2027.

This page is reviewed by hand. The date in the status box shows when every item on it was last checked against the court dockets, Congress.gov and the TTB.