The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider whether Congress had the constitutional authority to prohibit Americans from distilling alcoholic spirits in their own homes, taking up a legal dispute over a federal restriction dating back to 1868.

The case, Department of Justice v. McNutt, centers on whether Congress can criminalize home distilling as a way to prevent tax evasion. The law was enacted during the Reconstruction era after the Civil War, when federal officials sought to protect tax revenue from commercial liquor producers who were avoiding federal excise taxes.

Under current federal law, producing distilled spirits at home for personal use is prohibited. Violations can carry penalties of up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine, and the law also permits forfeiture of a home and property used in the illegal activity. Unlike homebrewing beer or making wine for personal consumption under certain federal exemptions, home distilling remains subject to a federal prohibition.

The legal challenge was brought by the Hobby Distillers Association and individuals who argue that Americans should be allowed to distill spirits at home for personal use or as a hobby. They contend that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by prohibiting the activity outright rather than simply requiring people to pay applicable taxes on the alcohol they produce.

A federal district court in Texas sided with the challengers, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the central ruling in April 2026. The appeals court concluded that banning home distilling was not a proper means of exercising Congress's taxing power because the prohibition prevents people from engaging in an activity that could generate taxable spirits in the first place. The court also warned that the government's reasoning could give Congress an overly broad basis for criminalizing otherwise lawful conduct at home.

The Trump administration is defending the law, arguing that home distilling can make it easier to conceal production and evade federal excise taxes. Government attorneys say Congress has a legitimate interest in protecting a significant source of federal revenue and that eliminating the restriction could undermine existing legal precedent and federal tax enforcement.

The dispute has also exposed a division among federal appeals courts. While the 5th Circuit ruled against the ban, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law in a separate case, finding that the restriction was a constitutionally permissible way to help enforce federal taxes on distilled spirits. The Supreme Court's intervention will allow the justices to resolve that disagreement.

The case has attracted support from attorneys general in 15 Republican-led states, who have urged the Supreme Court to resolve the constitutional dispute. The challengers argue that allowing the federal government to prohibit an activity simply because it could conceal taxable conduct risks expanding Washington's authority into areas traditionally governed by individuals and states. The administration counters that the law is a longstanding enforcement measure tied directly to Congress's power to collect taxes.

The justices are expected to hear arguments during the court's upcoming term, with a decision anticipated by late June or early July 2027. Their ruling could determine whether the federal government can continue enforcing the longstanding home-distilling ban nationwide or whether Americans will gain greater freedom to produce spirits at home, subject to applicable tax and safety laws.