Americans can brew beer in their kitchens and make wine at home, but just try making a bottle of whiskey or gin — and people can run afoul of a federal law that dates back more than 150 years.
That distinction caught the attention of Ohio resident John Ream, a former aerospace engineer and home-brewing enthusiast who wants to distill small quantities of spirits at home for himself and his wife.
“It is perfectly legal to make beer at home or to make wine at home, but if you make even a single ounce of distilled spirits at home, it is a federal felony,” Robert Alt, an attorney representing Ream, told Fox News Digital.
Ream’s interest in making his own drinks began when his then-fiancée, now wife, Kristin, gave him a home-brewing kit.
“Brewing was the perfect combination of art and science, and my engineering brain just totally latched onto it,” Ream told the Buckeye Institute, an Ohio-based think tank where Alt serves as president and CEO.
After years of experimenting with brewing, Ream and his wife opened Trek Brewing Company in Newark, Ohio.
But when Ream became interested in experimenting with distilled spirits at home, he encountered a very different set of rules.
Federal law allows qualifying home production of beer and wine for personal or family use — but distilled spirits cannot legally be produced at home. Federal violations can carry significant fines and prison time. The debate has also attracted attention within the home-brewing community.
The American Homebrewers Association, a trade group based in Boulder, Colorado, said this year that it does not have an official position on legalizing home distilling.
It noted that some of its members distill at home and emphasized education and safety around beverage-making hobbies.
Why federal law treats distilled spirits differently from beer and wine has roots stretching back more than two centuries.
The federal government began taxing distilled spirits in 1791, a levy that helped spark the Whiskey Rebellion several years later, according to the National Archives.
In 1868, amid concerns about tax evasion and the collection of liquor taxes, Congress enacted a broader system regulating distilled spirits that included restrictions on where distilleries could operate.
More than 150 years later, that old tax fight has produced a modern question.
“To what extent can Congress regulate local non-commercial otherwise lawful [activity] that you engage in, in your very home?” Alt said.
“That really is the core question in this case.”
Two federal appeals courts have given different answers to the constitutional question behind that debate.
The Sixth Circuit ruled against Ream in April, concluding that the home-distilling restriction could lawfully be used to support the collection of federal liquor taxes.
But 11 days earlier, the Fifth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in a separate challenge, ruling that Congress’ taxing authority did not justify the restriction.
Both disputes have reached the Supreme Court, though the justices have not agreed to hear either case.
“The Supreme Court gets a lot of petitions for review every year, between 7,000 and 10,000,” Alt said. “And the court, at this point, only hears about 60 cases.”
The federal government argues that the restriction remains a permissible part of the system used to protect and collect federal excise taxes on distilled spirits.
Ream and other home-distilling advocates contend that collecting those taxes does not give Congress the authority to prohibit the hobby altogether.
For home brewers interested in taking the next step from beer or wine to whiskey, gin or other spirits, the dispute could ultimately determine whether a hobby long prohibited under federal law can move out of the commercial distillery and into the home.
“This would be a wonderful opportunity to raise a glass to freedom and to limited government,” Alt said.
Fox News Digital’s Deirdre Bardolf contributed to this report.
The post Ex-engineer challenging 150-year-old homeade liquor ban hopes Supreme Court will hear his case appeared first on New York Post.
