In July, a Texas judge ruled that a 157-year-old ban on at-home distilling was unconstitutional, allowing a group of at-home distilling proponents in the Lone Star State to pursue their passion without the fear of breaking the law. It also marked a first step in the attempt to change a piece of U.S. beverage production that had been prohibited since nearly the American Civil War.
Now, more than five months after the ruling by Mark Pittman, a U.S. District Court judge for the Northern District of Texas, booze-making fans are gearing up for the next round of action.
Pittman on July 11 ruled in agreement with four individuals and the 1,300-member Texas-based Hobby Distillers Association (HDA), who sought an injuction to stop the Alcohol, Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) from enforcing a ban on distilling. The nonprofit libertarian Competitive Enterprise Intstitute (CEI), which has helped to litigate the case on behalf of the four individuals and the HDA, has claimed that the ban is an “illegitimate exercise of government power.”
The Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of the TTB, has argued that the ban protects revenue generated by taxing spirit production. But in his July ruling, Pittman said that the ban wasn’t impacting revenue on distilled products and therefore represented overreach.
The DOJ filed an appeal in August to move the case to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The CEI says it has filed a cross-appeal questioning Pittman’s dismissal of three of the four individuals from the suit. All briefings are expected to be filed by the end of the month, after which time the court will decide whether to have oral in-person arguments. There’s no timetable yet for when the 5th Circuit Court would render a decision.
Nevertheless, the attorneys representing the plantiffs say significant advancements have taken place in the effort to deregulate at-home distillation. Currently, as per Pittman’s ruling, only members of the HDA can acquire a permit to distill at home. They cannot be denied that permit, as well.
“The bottom line is we’ve made significant practical progress,” Competitive Enterprise Institute attorney Devon Watkins told Chron. “And significant theoretical progress in terms of what the lawyers are arguing.”
See here for the background. As I said back then, I approve of the HDA’s attempts to legalize their practice, but I don’t care for their specific legal arguments. One also must be wary any time a case with implications for federal law comes to the worst court in the country. I’ll keep an eye on it.