Home distillers rejoice as US Supreme Court considers whether to finally legalise moonshine

ByAna Faguy and Sheila Flynn, Senior US reporter.

Key points

• At present, distilling alcohol in a private home carries a penalty of up to five years in prison, a $10, 000 (£7, 460) fine or both.
• Not everyone is on board with the move, Courtney Armour, chief legal officer at The Distilled Spirits Council of the US, informed the BBC.
• Then moonshine and home distilling enjoyed a new renaissance in the early 2000s, he remarked, thanks to reality TV indicates like Moonshiners, the internet and popular culture.
• Rick Morris, the founder and president of the Hobby Distillers Association, was one of the challengers who sued in Texas to change the law.
• One lower court discovered the almost 160-year-old ban unconstitutional, but in a separate and similar case, another lower court came to the opposite conclusion.

Wyoming mechanic and amateur moonshiner Geno Stecks proudly details the modifications he's created at his two-bedroom home to facilitate his hobby of distilling liquor in his own home.

"I turned my dining room into my shining room, " boasted the bearded 66-year-old. This person uses a power drill fixed to a bowl to mix some of his recipe.

Two years ago, he began tinkering with recipes for home-producing spirits. The pastime has taught him new skills and given him a signature product to share with friends and neighbors – "coffee-flavoured shine". It additionally happens to be illegal under US law.

"You know, keep quiet – don't make commercials or nothing, " Stecks remarked.

But some home distillers hope they won't have to keep their hobby a secret for longer. The Supreme Court confirmed this week that it would reconsider the 1868 legislation forbidding the practice, and hobby distillers hope that their spirits will shortly be treated like beer and wine. It are both legal to brew at home nationwide.

Plaintiffs who brought the cases say Congress overstepped its powers in restricting distilling for tax purposes during the Reconstruction era. They want the highest judges in the country to agree.

But lawyers for the administration argue that Congress's measure was lawful, and necessary to stop producers from avoiding taxes.

One lower court discovered the almost 160-year-old ban unconstitutional, but in a separate and similar case, another lower court came to the opposite conclusion. The Supreme Court will hear the case early next year and could create a ruling in the summer of 2027.

"The particular law in question here is both absurd and unconstitutional, " remarked lawyer Robert Alt, representing the plaintiffs. "It's interesting to note that this is a hobby which is as American as apple pie – and certainly a lot older."

Alt, Stecks and plenty of proponents of the change point out that George Washington himself distilled spirits at home. Historian Daniel Pierce informed the BBC that home distilling was first criminalised for revenue purposes, requiring anyone making spirits to pay a tax.

When federal agents began enforcing the law, small farmers who were distilling on the side as a way to create some extra capital or to barter were left with few options.

"If you're a large distiller or something, you could afford to, but for most people, it was out of the question, " Pierce remarked.

When the US implemented Prohibition – the nationwide ban on the production and sale of alcohol between 1930 and 1933 – it created a whole new market for illegal distillers, particularly moonshiner, Pierce remarked.

NASCAR, the racing sport, was born out of the high-speed, modified cars that bootleggers once applied to transport illicit liquor and outrun the law.

Plenty of continued their illegal distilling after Prohibition's end, often passing on family recipes in secret (or, at least, in tightly-knit circles) for generations.

"You start to get this pretty dramatic revival. In terms of home distilling, " Pierce remarked.

Rick Morris, the founder and president of the Hobby Distillers Association, was one of the challengers who sued in Texas to change the law. He first entered the drinks industry working with soda machines and bottled water, then became a hobbyist home brewer of beer and wine with his wife.

They created a frustrating discovery when they tried to take the "next step" into distilling.

"It didn't make sense, " he remarked. "I could make beer, I could make wine, both perfectly legally. And it was frustrating that I couldn't take what I had already legally made and do one more step to it, to start to try to make a bourbon or a brandy."

For context, the allure for Morris and plenty of other hobbyists, they say, is the mechanics and innovation behind the process.

"There is a lot of science and details to get straightened out, but there is still a big vein of creativity in the art that goes into it – blending flavours and aromas and all that, " remarked Ohio challenger John Bream, an aerospace engineer by trade.

He first took up the hobby when his wife offered him a home-brewing kit around 17 years ago. He set up his operations in their kitchen but "made too many messes and got kicked out into the garage".

"Through homebrewing, I became aware that going to the next level of distilling was illegal. So I stayed away from it, " he remarked.

But he realised he could be "part of the force for good" by joining legal challenges to the archaic law.

Not everyone is on board with the move, Courtney Armour, chief legal officer at The Distilled Spirits Council of the US, informed the BBC. She worries regarding the challenges and dangers that come with home producing.

"The distillation process can be quite dangerous, including risk of explosion, burns, fires, and more, " Armour remarked. "The spirits industry has a clear focus on safety and process management to mitigate these risks, but even in that careful environment there are still accidents, injuries and even fatalities."

And then there are health reservations that can arise when alcohol has not been produced properly.

"In a home-distilling setting, these dangers would not just be limited to the individuals engaging in the production but also their neighbors in the surrounding area, " Armour remarked.

While home distilling remains federally banned, states like Missouri and New Hampshire have passed legislation allowing the production of certain amounts at home for personal consumption.

According to Attorney Alt, "alcohol, traditionally, has been an area of state regulation. So this question of state versus federal authority is really at the very heart of this case".

Alt additionally stated the legal challenge addresses what oversight federal authorities have on home activities.

"This circuit court said, look, if the federal government is right on this, there's almost no limits to what they could ban at home in the name of taxation, " he remarked.

Distillery owner and former Missouri state representative Don Gosen remarked he assisted shape the state's 1995 law allowing residents to distill 100 gallons of spirits at home per year per person – or 200 gallons per household.

"I've never seen the federal government come and fine anybody for doing it, because it's kind of small potatoes. And so a lot of people, I believe, still do it, kind of behind the scenes like in the old days, " Gosen remarked.

Plenty of residents have come to him for advice over the years, not knowing regarding the federal law. Some bring him their homemade bottles and ask his opinion, he remarked.

"I'll taste it, and it'll be terrible, " Gosen laughed. "And I'll throw on a happy face and say, 'Oh, it's wonderful' – since they produced it. They love it."

Gosen, Morris and others within the industry believe legally allowing home distilling will only support it grow.

For now, home distillers rejoice as US Supreme Court considers whether to finally legalise remains the part of the story worth watching, and further updates are likely as more details are confirmed.