On April 21, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Ream v. U.S. Department of Treasury that the federal home distilling ban is constitutional, directly contradicting the 5th Circuit’s April 10 decision. This creates a circuit split between two federal appeals courts, which dramatically increases the likelihood the Supreme Court will take up the issue. The bottom line for homebrewers: the legal picture just got more complicated, not less. We have updated this article to reflect this development.
If you brew beer, make wine, press cider, or ferment mead at home, you have probably wondered at some point why spirits were the one thing you couldn’t legally make. On April 10, 2026, a federal appeals court gave that question a very different answer than the one we have all been living with for the past 158 years. Then, eleven days later, a different appeals court reached the opposite conclusion.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal ban on home distilling is unconstitutional. The court found that the Reconstruction-era law, passed in 1868, overstepped Congress’s taxing authority by criminalizing an activity that actually prevented tax collection rather than supporting it. It was a landmark decision, and it had a lot of homebrewers excited. But on April 21, the 6th Circuit ruled the opposite way, finding the ban is a valid exercise of Congress’s power. Before you start shopping for a still, there are some important details you need to understand.
What Actually Happened
The case was brought by the Hobby Distillers Association (HDA) and four of its members, with legal backing from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian legal group. The plaintiffs argued that they should be free to distill spirits at home for personal use, the same way federal law has allowed homebrewing of beer and wine since 1978.
The original ban was part of an 1868 law aimed at preventing liquor tax evasion during Reconstruction. Violators faced up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Circuit Judge Edith Hollan Jones, writing for a three-judge panel, found that the ban did not actually raise revenue. Instead, it prevented distilled spirits from coming into existence in the first place, which means there was nothing to tax. The court called it “an anti-revenue provision” that goes beyond what Congress can do under its taxing power.
The ruling upheld a July 2024 decision by U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman in Fort Worth, Texas, who originally found the ban unconstitutional but stayed his ruling to let the government appeal.
The Backstory Most People Don’t Know
This did not happen overnight. The HDA was founded in 2013 by Rick Morris, who ran a distilling equipment company called Brewhaus America out of North Texas. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) had been pressuring distilling equipment sellers to hand over customer lists. Morris decided it was time to fight back.
The HDA initially tried the legislative route, hiring a lobbyist and meeting with senators, representatives, and even the head of the TTB. They made progress, but larger commercial distillers blocked the effort. As Morris has explained, groups like the Kentucky Distillers’ Association saw hobby distillers as potential competition, much the same way large breweries once viewed homebrewers.
When funding for the lobbying effort dried up, the HDA’s luck changed in 2018 when the Competitive Enterprise Institute reached out about a possible lawsuit. The conversation stalled during COVID but picked back up in 2022. The CEI filed suit in December 2023 on behalf of the HDA, and the rest is now legal history.
It is worth noting the parallels here. The homebrewing community went through a very similar fight decades ago, and the craft beer explosion that followed changed the entire industry. The cider world has its own history of government interference, too. Prohibition nearly wiped out America’s cider tradition entirely, destroying orchards and erasing generations of knowledge. These beverage traditions have a pattern of being crushed by regulation and then slowly, sometimes painfully, clawing their way back.
What This Does and Does Not Mean Right Now
Here is where it gets practical, and where homebrewers need to pay close attention.
What the 5th Circuit ruling does: It strikes down the federal criminal prohibition on home distilling within its jurisdiction. The court allowed an injunction against enforcement to go into effect, which means the federal government should not be prosecuting people for home distilling under this specific law in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
What the 6th Circuit ruling does: It goes in the other direction entirely. In Ream v. U.S. Department of Treasury, the 6th Circuit found that John Ream, an Ohio brewer and former aerospace engineer who wanted to distill whiskey at home, had standing to challenge the law (reversing the lower court on that point). But on the merits, the majority held that the home distilling ban is constitutional as a “necessary and proper” means of collecting the federal excise tax on distilled spirits. Circuit Judge Raymond Kethledge wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Eugene Siler. Judge Denise Page Hood Mathis dissented.
The 6th Circuit took a very different view of the 1868 law than the 5th Circuit did. Where the 5th Circuit saw the ban as an overreach that actually prevented tax revenue, the 6th Circuit saw it as one piece of a comprehensive system designed to make tax collection on spirits enforceable. The court pointed to the broader statutory framework: stills must be registered, distilling operations are subject to inspection at any time (day or night), and operators must post signs and provide keys to federal revenue officers. The home distilling ban, in the 6th Circuit’s view, fits within that system because homes are inherently difficult for the government to monitor and inspect.
What the circuit split means: Two federal appeals courts have now reached opposite conclusions about the same law. The 5th Circuit says the ban is unconstitutional. The 6th Circuit says it is constitutional. This kind of disagreement is one of the main reasons the Supreme Court agrees to hear cases. A Supreme Court decision would settle the question for the entire country.
What the rulings do not do: Neither ruling changes state law. Many states have their own prohibitions on home distilling that are completely independent of the federal ban. If your state says you cannot distill at home, neither of these federal rulings changes that.
The State Law Patchwork
This is the part that will matter most to you as a homebrewer thinking about dipping your toes into distilling. The state-by-state landscape is complicated.
Some states, including Alaska, Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Rhode Island, have laws on the books that would effectively permit home distilling if the federal ban were removed. Other states, like Florida, Connecticut, and Hawaii, have their own bans that remain in effect regardless of what happens at the federal level. Florida even makes it illegal to own a still without a license.
The bottom line: before you do anything, research your own state’s laws carefully. Better yet, consult an attorney who understands your state’s alcohol regulations. This is not the kind of thing where you want to guess.
Safety Is Not Optional
One important reason distilling has been regulated more heavily than brewing or winemaking is safety. Distillation concentrates alcohol and involves heating flammable vapors, which introduces risks that do not exist when you are brewing a batch of pale ale or fermenting a bucket of cider.
The primary concerns are methanol contamination (particularly when distilling fruit-based washes high in pectin), fire or explosion from alcohol vapors near heat sources, and lead or copper contamination from poorly constructed equipment. The methanol risk is often overstated in popular culture, but it is real enough to take seriously. Grain-based ferments produce very low levels of methanol, but fruit-based mashes require more careful handling and proper cuts during distillation.
If and when home distilling becomes broadly legal, education will be critical. The homebrewing community built a strong culture of sharing knowledge about sanitation, fermentation science, and safe practices. The home distilling community will need to do the same, and frankly, groups like the HDA have already been doing that work for years.
What Homebrewers Should Watch For
If you are already comfortable with fermentation and you have been curious about spirits, here are a few things to keep an eye on:
The circuit split between the 5th and 6th Circuits makes Supreme Court review far more likely. The government now has strong reason to seek review (to restore the ban nationwide), and the Hobby Distillers Association has strong reason to welcome it (to try to extend the 5th Circuit’s reasoning to all 50 states). The government has 90 days from the 5th Circuit ruling to petition for Supreme Court review. If the Court takes the case, we likely would not see a decision until 2027 or 2028.
One important wrinkle: the 5th Circuit did not address whether the Commerce Clause could independently justify the ban, because the government did not raise that argument in that case. The 6th Circuit’s Ream case did include Commerce Clause arguments. If the Supreme Court takes this up, it could address both the taxing power and Commerce Clause questions in one shot, which would be the most definitive resolution possible.
For now, the smartest move is to educate yourself. Learn the science of distillation. Understand the safety requirements. Follow what the HDA and the Buckeye Institute (which represented Ream in the 6th Circuit case) are doing. And keep doing what you are already doing: brewing, fermenting, and building your skills as a home beverage maker. That foundation will serve you well if and when the legal landscape opens up further.
The Bigger Picture
This fight is about more than just spirits. It is part of a broader conversation about personal freedom, the limits of federal power, and the right of hobbyists to practice their craft at home. The homebrewing community fought this battle and won decades ago. The craft beer, wine, cider, and mead movements that followed have enriched American beverage culture in ways nobody could have predicted.
The circuit split makes it clear that the legal question is far from settled. Two courts looked at the same 158-year-old law and came to opposite conclusions. That disagreement almost certainly means the Supreme Court will have the final say. Whether home distilling follows the same path as homebrewing, from outlaw hobby to legal and celebrated craft, may ultimately depend on nine justices in Washington.
For now, the story is still being written. And honestly, that is a future worth paying attention to, whatever happens to be in your glass.
© 2026 BrewAndBeyond.com. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written consent of the copyright owner.
