The court rejected the argument that the 1868 ban on possessing a still in a dwelling house exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers, concluding that the rule is plainly adapted to the legitimate end of securing revenue from the liquor industry.
John Ream, an Ohio resident who owns a brewery and taproom, sued to strike down the ban after determining he wanted to distill whiskey at home for personal consumption. He argued that the prohibition was beyond Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause and the Taxing Clause.
The district court had dismissed the case for lack of standing, reasoning that Ream had not purchased equipment or faced specific threats of prosecution. The Sixth Circuit disagreed, finding that the statutory ban itself, combined with Treasury Department regulations and public statements from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, created a credible threat of felony prosecution.
Writing for the court, Judge Raymond M. Kethledge noted that the home-distilling ban was enacted in 1868 to combat rampant tax evasion that had plagued the nation since the Revolution. The opinion cited historical testimony describing "stupendous frauds" against the government in the collection of revenue from spirits.
The court explained that stills are easier to hide in homes than in bonded premises, and that dwelling houses are significantly harder for internal revenue officers to search at all times compared to dedicated distilling facilities.
Ream argued that he would gladly pay the tax on his home-distilled whiskey and that the ban actually reduced revenue by preventing payment. The court rejected this, reasoning that Congress could reasonably conclude that home-produced spirits would substitute for taxed commercial spirits, and that many home distillers would evade payment entirely.
The opinion emphasized that Ream had not volunteered to comply with other statutory requirements, such as furnishing keys to officers for entry into his home or posting signs announcing his distilling operations. The court suggested that absent such compliance, Congress could easily conclude that home distillers would evade taxes more effectively.
Judge Andre B. Mathis dissented, arguing that Ream lacked standing because there had been no past enforcement of the specific home-distilling prohibition against him or others in over 50 years. Mathis contended that the mere existence of the ban, without a history of enforcement or specific warning letters, did not create a certainly impending threat of prosecution.
The Sixth Circuit remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the defendants, affirming that the home-distilling ban remains constitutional.