Supreme Court agrees to review federal ban on distilling spirits in private homes

As of 10:54 a.m. ET, Monday, Oct. 19, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, Oct. 19, agreed to review a longstanding federal restriction on producing distilled spirits in private homes, granting the government's petition for a writ of certiorari in Department of Justice v. McNutt, No. 26-204, according to the Court's order list for that day.

Under the heading "CERTIORARI GRANTED," the order list states: "26-204 DEPT. OF JUSTICE, ET AL. V. SCOTT McNUTT, ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted."

The Associated Press, in a post on X at 9:53 a.m. ET, wrote: "BREAKING: The Supreme Court agrees to review the Reconstruction-era ban on distilling spirits in private homes."

What McNutt asks

The government's petition in McNutt, filed by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, presents this question: "Whether the prohibition on the production of distilled spirits in particular locations, including 'in any dwelling house' or 'in any shed, yard, or inclosure connected with any dwelling house,' 26 U.S.C. 5178(a)(1)(B), is necessary and proper for carrying into execution Congress's enumerated power to lay and collect taxes."

The petition says the Fifth Circuit, in the decision below, held that those location restrictions exceed Congress's enumerated powers, "in direct conflict with a decision of the Sixth Circuit upholding the restriction on home distilling." The Fifth Circuit case is captioned McNutt v. U.S. Department of Justice, from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 24-10760, decided April 10, 2026, according to the Supreme Court docket.

Parties on the government's petition include the U.S. Department of Justice and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. Respondents include Scott McNutt and the Hobby Distillers Association, according to the petition.

Neither Monday's order list nor the McNutt docket page, as of 10:54 a.m. ET, set a date for oral argument.

The related Ream case

A related challenge from the Sixth Circuit is John Ream v. Department of the Treasury, et al., No. 26-93. The Supreme Court docket for that case lists the lower court as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 25-3259, with a decision dated April 21, 2026. The petition was docketed July 21, 2026. Counsel of record for petitioner John Ream is Andrew Michael Grossman of Baker & Hostetler LLP; counsel of record for the federal respondents is Solicitor General D. John Sauer.

Monday's order list does not name No. 26-93 under "CERTIORARI GRANTED" or elsewhere. As of 10:54 a.m. ET, the public docket for No. 26-93 still listed as its latest entry "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/16/2026," with no grant recorded.

Ream's petition states the questions presented as:

"1. Whether the federal prohibition on home distilling exceeds Congress's enumerated powers."

"2. Whether the Court should overrule Raich or at least clarify that Congress's commerce power does not extend to regulation of local, noncommercial conduct and that its exercise is subject to meaningful judicial scrutiny."

The petition describes the challenged law this way: Federal law prohibits "producing distilled spirits…in any dwelling house, or in any shed, yard, or inclosure connected with such dwelling house." 26 U.S.C. § 5601(a)(6); see also id. § 5178(a)(1)(B).

Respondents named in the Ream petition are the United States Department of the Treasury; Scott Bessent, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury; the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau; and Mary G. Ryan, in her official capacity as administrator of that bureau.

The Sixth Circuit opinion, reproduced in Ream's petition appendix, says the court held "that the ban is a necessary and proper means of collecting the federal excise tax on distilled spirits." The petition says that opinion is reported at 174 F.4th 480.

Government's position in Ream

In its brief for the federal respondents in Ream, the government said it agreed that "the question whether the location restrictions are a necessary and proper means for carrying out Congress's taxing power warrants this Court's review," and that it was filing a petition in McNutt. "Because that case provides a better vehicle, the Court should grant review in McNutt and hold this case pending McNutt," the brief said.

On Ream's second question, about Gonzales v. Raich, the government wrote: "That question was not addressed by either lower court in this case, and it does not warrant this Court's consideration."

The brief's conclusion said that "[t]he petition for a writ of certiorari should be held pending this Court's consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari in United States Department of Justice v. McNutt … and then disposed of as appropriate in light of the Court's disposition of that case."