Reason
· collected 2026-09-12 · by C. Jarrett Dieterle
John Ream is trying to do something that should be straightforward: distill his own alcohol.
asserted
that → try → alcohol
Since the Founding of our country, Americans have sought to distill spirits on their own property for personal consumption.
asserted
Americans → seek → consumption
Nearly every famous Founding Father—from George Washington to James Madison to Patrick Henry—distilled spirits on their land, and in modern times, activities like homebrewing have been legalized for decades.
asserted
activities → distil → decades
The Supreme Court could soon step in.
uncertain
Court → step → ?
The trouble dates back about a century and a half ago.
asserted
trouble → date → ?
In 1868, Congress made it a crime to use or possess a still or boiler for the purpose of distilling spirits "in any dwelling house, or in any shed, yard, or inclosure connected with such dwelling house."
asserted
it → make → house
The purported reason for the ban was to facilitate collecting tax revenue from authorized commercial distillers.
asserted
reason → facilitate → distillers
While hobby distillers have long criticized this federal distilling ban, it is now receiving renewed attention, particularly in terms of what it says about the federal government's power in America today.
asserted
it → criticize → America
In 2024, Ream, with the help of the Buckeye Institute, challenged the federal distilling prohibition.
asserted
Ream → challenge → prohibition
After all, if Congress can prohibit Ream from making a product for personal consumption within his own home, where would the federal government's power end?
asserted
power → prohibit → home
In response, the federal government has advanced two main arguments to defend the ban: first, that the ban is authorized under Congress' Article I taxing power, and second, that it's permissible under the Interstate Commerce Clause, which allows Congress to regulate commerce "among the several states."
asserted
Congress → advance → states
Under the government's theory, these two clauses—in conjunction with the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause, which permits Congress to enact all laws that are "necessary and proper" to carry into effect its enumerated powers—give it the authority to prohibit Ream from operating a small home still for the personal consumption of spirits.
asserted
that → permit → spirits
Earlier this year, two federal circuit court decisions reached differing conclusions on the distilling ban.
asserted
decisions → reach → ban
In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, Ream lost, with the court buying the federal government's claim that it can prohibit home distilling under the taxation power and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
uncertain
it → lose → power
In a companion case in the 5th Circuit, however, the government's taxation theory was rejected.
asserted
theory → reject → Circuit
Given that these two decisions have teed up a so-called "circuit split," it's widely expected that the high court could step in to make a final determination.
uncertain
court → give → determination
But while the government's troubling taxation power argument in these cases has received ample coverage—including in these pages—relatively little has been written about the government's back-up defense centered on the Commerce Clause.
asserted
little → receive → Clause
Neither lower court directly weighed in on the Commerce Clause.
asserted
court → weigh → Clause
But the government's alternative defense is technically still alive on appeal and could be resolved by the Supreme Court.
uncertain
defense → resolve → Court
A decision on the issue could be the most important Commerce Clause holding since NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), in which the Court ruled that the individual mandate under the Affordable Care Act was not a valid exercise of congressional power under the Commerce Clause (though the Court ultimately upheld the mandate via different means).
uncertain
Court → rule → means
Americans interested in federalism should hope that the Supreme Court seizes the opportunity before it to reimpose limits on the federal government's interstate commerce power.
asserted
Court → hope → power
The heart of that debate can be traced back to the Court's notorious 1942 decision in Wickard v. Filburn, which held that a farmer named Roscoe Filburn could be prohibited from growing wheat for home consumption.
uncertain
farmer → trace → consumption
The Court adopted what became known as the "aggregation principle," arguing that if, on aggregate, farmers like Filburn were allowed to grow wheat for their own consumption, this could have a substantial effect on interstate commerce (since those farmers would presumably be substituting their own wheat for purchases on the open market).
uncertain
farmers → adopt → market
While Wickard stretched the Commerce Clause far beyond its original understanding, it at least dealt with production on a sizable farm.
asserted
it → stretch → farm
(Filburn grew 11.9 extra acres of wheat for home consumption).
asserted
Filburn → grow → consumption
The 2005 ruling in Gonzales v. Raich, however, expanded the Commerce Clause to the breaking point.
asserted
ruling → expand → point
In Raich, the Supreme Court used the Commerce Clause to uphold the federal government's authority to criminalize the production of homegrown cannabis.
asserted
Court → use → cannabis
According to the Court, Congress could regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic "class of activities" that have a "substantial effect on interstate commerce."
uncertain
that → accord → commerce
The problem with this analysis is that it substitutes the broader concept of "economic activity" for what the Constitution actually says—that Congress can regulate "commerce" among the several states.
asserted
Congress → substitute → states
While Founding era usage of the term "commerce" distinguished it from the production or manufacture of a product, the Court labeled production and manufacture as "quintessentially economic" and therefore within the ambit of an elastic interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
asserted
Court → distinguish → Clause
This functionally rewrote the Constitution's text by deleting the word "commerce" and replacing it with "economics," a far broader term.
asserted
This → rewrite → economics
If Ream distills his own liquor, the theory holds, then he may be less likely to buy liquor on the open market.
uncertain
he → distill → market
And if more would-be home distillers follow his lead, then there could be a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce.
uncertain
distillers → follow → commerce
With that reading, it's hard to see where the federal government's power would end here.
asserted
power → see → reading
In an amicus brief before the Supreme Court, my Manhattan Institute colleagues Ilya Shapiro and Trevor Burrus point out that this same reasoning would theoretically reach "virtually every other household activity," giving the feds authority to regulate "all ordinary household life."
asserted
reasoning → point → life
A homegrown herb garden, for instance, could result in its planter purchasing fewer herbs at the grocery store.
uncertain
planter → result → store
A stay-at-home parent could prevent a family from hiring paid child care.
uncertain
parent → stay → care
A homeschooling family might forego potential tuition payments at a nearby private school.
uncertain
family → homeschoole → school
Taken to its logical conclusion, the Court's analysis could justify federal intrusion into each of these spheres of domestic life, thereby erasing any limits on the federal government's Commerce Clause power altogether.
uncertain
analysis → take → power
Ream's case, in that vein, provides the current Court the chance to overturn Raich and clarify that Congress' Commerce Clause authority does have meaningful limits.
asserted
authority → provide → limits
…and 4 more, not listed.
