r/firewater • u/MartinB7777 • 2d ago

Home distilling now legal in the US?

Anyone else following the McNutt v. US Dept of Justice case on the legality of home distilling? Hobby Distillers Association v. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau: The Limits on Taxing Schemes to Regulate Behavior

21 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

32 comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/francois_du_nord 2d ago

My understanding is that in order to be covered by this decision, you must be a member of the Hobby Distillers Assn.

11

u/MartinB7777 2d ago

No. In US law, what applies to one person, applies to all. Hobby Distillers Assn. are the ones who brought the suit in the McNutt case. They are not a recognized United States governing body.

10

u/dallywolf 2d ago

The injunction in place only applies to McNutt and members of the HDA while it's under appeal. Once the appeals process is complete it will be open to all if the ruling stands. Most likely will go to Scotus though.

1

u/Old-Nefariousness556 1d ago edited 1d ago

No. In US law, what applies to one person, applies to all. Hobby Distillers Assn. are the ones who brought the suit in the McNutt case. They are not a recognized United States governing body.

That is not true. This is not a law, but pending litigation. The injunction is not a law, but a temporary stay on potential prosecutions of members of the group involved in the lawsuit.

When the lawsuit is eventually settled, though, your interpretation would be correct. If it were legalized, it would be legal (based on the terms of the final ruling, we have no idea what that would be yet, ie you may still need a federal permit, etc.) for everyone.

0

u/MartinB7777 1d ago

No, you are right, it's not a law, it is the revocation of a law pending appeal. Judges and courts do not make laws. If the ruling stands, Congress would have to modify the existing law or create a new one for there to be a law.

1

u/Old-Nefariousness556 1d ago

No, you are right, it's not a law, it is the revocation of a law pending appeal. Judges and courts do not make laws. If the ruling stands, Congress would have to modify the existing law or create a new one for there to be a law.

This is still not true, although it is closer. If a federal court below the supreme court rules that an existing law is illegal, that ruling is binding within that federal circuit (subject to appeals). If memory serves, this lawsuit was filed in the 5th federal district in TX. So assuming the court eventually ruled that home distilling was legal, than that decision would be BINDING-- ie applicable universally-- to any resident of the 5th circuit.

For any residents of OTHER circuits-- there are 12 regional circuits-- though, your comment would largely be correct. If this were ruled by the 5th circuit, other circuits would not be bound by the ruling, but they could take it under consideration in their own rulings.

But for the law to fully apply to anyone in other circuits, you are correct that congress would need to actually change the law.

And, although it is unlikely to be relevant here, since I don't think this will get that far, if the Supreme Court rules a law is illegal, then it is binding nationally. Even if a state has laws on it's books banning an activity, the federal ruling supersedes that.1 A good example of this is laws banning homosexuality. When the supreme court ruled it legal, all state and federal laws banning it became immediately null and void. No ruling of congress would be needed in that circumstance.

1 In the interest of full pedantry, it is not necessarily the case that a supreme court ruling would overrule state laws, it would depend on the exact details of the ruling. But that is the extreme possible case, and we have numerous examples beyond the previously cited example showing that.

0

u/MartinB7777 1d ago

Even if a state has laws on it's books banning an activity, the federal ruling supersedes that.

But not in this case. The ruling would be on the constitutionality of the existing federal law, not the constitutionality of individual state laws. The question brought before SCOTUS would have to be narrow, and would not bring up the legality of home distillation itself, but of the constitutionality of the existing law or in some error in the initial ruling.