Today, the Supreme Court agreed to hear McNutt v. U.S. Department of Justice, a case focused on whether the at-home distilling ban is unconstitutional. Scholars at the Cato Institute filed an amicus brief in the circuit court in support of McNutt.

In a blog post detailing the brief, Thomas Berry, the director of the Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, raises three main points:

  • An outright prohibition on home distilling has a far more tenuous relation to collecting revenue, and the precedents the government relies on do not apply here.
  • Taxing power must serve a revenue-generating purpose, but the criminalization of at-home distilling does not raise revenue.
  • The federal government offers no limiting principle to its contention that it may prohibit taxable conduct that occurs within the home.

To speak with Berry, contact Christopher Tarvardian.