A Would-Be Home Distiller Fights Back in Ream v. U.S. Department of Treasury
Mar 25, 2024
auto_awesome
Robert Alt from The Buckeye Institute discusses John Ream's fight against federal laws banning home distillation. They explore the legal distinctions between brewing and distilling, state vs. federal authority in alcohol regulation, limitations of federal power, and the potential for innovation in the distilling industry with regulatory changes.
John Reem's lawsuit challenges federal regulations on home distilling, aiming to legalize the hobby for personal use.
The Ream v. U.S. Department of Treasury case questions the expansive federal regulatory power over local activities.
Deep dives
Challenging Current Regulations on Home Distilling
John Reem, an Ohio entrepreneur, is challenging federal regulations on home distilling, aiming to make it legal for hobbyists like himself to engage in this activity. His lawsuit against the Treasury Department questions the interpretation of the U.S. Commerce Clause, potentially leading to significant changes in federal regulation.
Historical Perspective: The Wicked v. Filburn Case
The discussion delves into the historical context of the Wicked v. Filburn case, where an Ohio farmer challenged Congress's authority to regulate crops grown for personal use. The Supreme Court's broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause set a precedent that significantly expanded federal regulatory power over local activities, impacting various hobbies and personal endeavors.
Implications for Home Distilling and Federal Authority
The conversation extends to the current implications of federal authority over activities like home distilling. The case filed by John Reem seeks to establish limitations on federal regulatory power, emphasizing the importance of upholding constitutional constraints and allowing for innovation and freedom in areas such as craft brewing and distilling.
An engineer and brewer thought he would take up home distilling as a hobby, but he then learned it's a federal crime. In Ream v. U.S. Department of Treasury, he's fighting back. The Buckeye Institute's Robert Alt explains.