The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to consider whether Congress had the constitutional authority to impose a ban on distilling spirits in private homes more than 150 years ago.

Plaintiffs challenging the prohibition on home distilling claim the 1868 law is an antiquated relic of Reconstruction-era politics. They argue that Congress overstepped its taxation powers when it enacted the home distilling ban as part of a tax reform measure designed to curb fraud by commercial distillers.

Government attorneys counter that Congress properly restricted where spirits can be distilled to prevent producers from evading federal excise taxes. They warn that lifting the ban would violate Supreme Court precedent and erode congressional powers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Makes sense, they need some positive PR before their next disgusting decision.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court erased limits on how much political parties can spend on advertising and other efforts in coordination with candidates for Congress and president.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the president can fire leaders of independent agencies or commissions.

In an unsigned order, the Supreme Court allowed Alabama to keep its 2026 elections using a map with redrawn voting districts that had been found by a lower court to be racially discriminatory.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/8-major-supreme-court-cases-being-decided-this-summer-heres-where-they-stand

  • source