Amicus Brief: Home Distilling Case Should Test Limits of Federal Control

Ream v. U.S. Department of the Treasury  

John Ream wants to distill small amounts of liquor at home for personal use—just as Americans have legally brewed beer and made wine at home since Congress legalized homebrewing in 1979. But federal law makes home distilling a felony, even in small quantities for personal consumption.  

Rather than violate the statute, John sued asking the courts to declare this blanket ban unconstitutional. He hasn’t distilled a drop yet—he simply wants to engage in a private, non-commercial activity inside his own home. 

The district court refused to hear John’s case. Rather than examining whether Congress has the constitutional authority to ban home distilling, the judge ruled that John lacked standing to challenge the law because he had not taken enough concrete steps toward actually breaking it. In so ruling, the court misapplied a standing inquiry designed for First Amendment cases where plaintiffs fear overbroad and vague laws might chill their free speech rights. That approach missed the point. John isn’t confused about the law’s scope—he knows the law prohibits his what he plans to do. He’s asking whether Congress has the power to criminalize home-distilling, private, non-commercial activity, in the first place. 

CIR’s amicus brief urges the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse this decision and decide whether the law is constitutional. The statute clearly forbids what John wants to do, and the federal government has never promised they won’t enforce it.  

The stakes go far beyond alcohol. If this ruling stands, it invites further expansion of federal control into areas that should be left to states or individuals. This case is not about alcohol policy; it’s about constitutional limits on government power. 

Background: What is the Commerce Clause? 

The Constitution gives Congress only specific, limited powers. One of  them is the authority to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States”—known as the Commerce Clause.  

What the Commerce Clause is meant to do: Allow Congress to manage trade between states, prevent states from discriminating against each other economically (economic protectionism), and ensure a unified national marketplace.  

What the Commerce Clause is not meant to do: Give Congress unlimited “police powers” to regulate any private activity that might, in the aggregate, affect the economy.  

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that purely local, non-commercial activity falls outside Congress’s authority—unless regulating that activity is necessary to a broader economic regulatory scheme. 

Why this matters for our system of government: The Constitution deliberately limits federal power to enumerated spheres to preserve room for states to govern their citizens and for individuals to live free from federal interference in purely personal matters. The Commerce Clause helps maintain that balance. 

The federal ban on home distilling crosses this constitutional line. Unlike the laws the Supreme Court has upheld (like regulating wheat farming in Wickard v. Filburn or marijuana cultivation in Gonzales v. Raich,) the home-distilling prohibition is not part of a comprehensive national regulation of the market. It does not stabilize a market, regulate a supply chain, or serve any coordinated economic purpose. It is simply a blanket ban on private conduct inside one’s own home—no different than banning backyard vegetable gardens, home baking, or home-brewing beer.  

Such a law does not regulate commerce between states. It regulates individuals in their own homes. 

Why This Case Matters 

This case gives the Sixth Circuit an opportunity to reinforce the constitutional boundary between federal and state power.  

The government’s dangerous position: The federal government argues it can criminalize home distilling without showing any connection to interstate commerce or demonstrating it’s necessary for broader economic regulation. If accepted, this would give Congress the general police power the Constitution specifically denied it. 

CIR’s amicus brief defends the structural safeguards that protect individual liberty from government overreach. When Congress exceeds its constitutional limits, courts must step in—that’s their constitutional duty. 

The issue of standing: If people like John Ream are denied the right to challenge unconstitutional laws because courts wrongly demand they risk prosecution first, then the judiciary fails to fulfill its fundamental role of enforcing limits on the national government’s powers. 

CIR filed this brief as part of its Project to Restore Competitive Federalism, continuing our long-standing mission to defend individual rights by policing the boundaries of federal power.