2026年10月19日 美国东部时间09:52 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
华盛顿讯 美国最高法院周一表示，将对一项已有近160年历史的联邦家庭酿酒禁令的合宪性进行审议。
这起名为“美国司法部诉麦克纳特案”的听证会预计将于明年举行，法院将在次年6月底或7月初作出裁决。
一个多世纪以来，国会一直对酿酒地点加以限制，以防止逃税。根据本案所涉的1868年出台的法律，“任何人不得在家庭中酿制蒸馏酒供个人使用”。任何在“住宅”或棚屋、庭院、围场内使用或拥有蒸馏器及其他设备酿制蒸馏酒的人都将面临刑事处罚。
违者将被处以罚款，最高可判处五年监禁。违法者的住宅及屋内财产也将被没收。
国会通过这项限制措施，是因为认定商业酿酒者存在大规模逃税行为。根据1867年众议院的一份报告，当时烈酒的税率为每加仑2美元，超过了其市场价格，商业酿酒者发现贿赂税务官员比缴税更划算。议员们当时认定，“至少七分之八”的烈酒未被征税。
最终出台的家庭酿酒禁令法案降低了税率，并要求烈酒从仓库取出前必须缴纳税款。该法案没有为个人或家庭自用的蒸馏酒留出例外条款。
Hobby酿酒商协会及其一名成员提起了这起针对长期家庭酿酒禁令的诉讼。该协会成员希望在家中酿制烈酒，并认为家庭酿酒禁令超出了国会的列举式权力范围，包括征税权。联邦地区法院支持原告方，认定该禁令违宪。
地区法院表示，国会在19世纪出台的地点限制“将未涉及缴税义务的行为定为犯罪”，且并未“触及应予征税的产品”。
随后，美国第五巡回上诉法院维持了该项裁决的大部分内容，并表示对家庭酿酒的限制并未“明显适配”以支持政府的征税权，因为这些禁令禁止人们酿制本应缴税的蒸馏酒，反而减少了税收收入。
第五巡回上诉法院指出，若维持该禁令，将等于允许国会“仅因某一家庭行为有可能掩盖应纳税活动，就将其定为几乎所有的犯罪行为”。
在敦促最高法院受理此案时，副检察长D.约翰·索尔辩称，下级法院宣布禁令违宪的判决是“错误的”。
他在上诉状中写道，国会之所以限制家庭酿酒，是因为“如果蒸馏器设在住宅或附属建筑内，酿酒者更容易隐藏酿酒操作或阻挠必要的检查——从而逃避应缴的税款”。
潜在酿酒者的律师也同意最高法院应当介入并裁决该禁令的合宪性，他们称该禁令超出了国会根据宪法征税条款和必要与适当条款所拥有的权力。
他们在法庭文件中警告称：“政府声称有权将任何可能掩盖应纳税活动的本地行为定为犯罪，这种主张没有任何边界。”
Supreme Court to decide legality of federal ban on distilling liquor at home
2026-10-19 09:52 EDT / CBS News
By
Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday said it will consider the constitutionality of a nearly 160-year-old federal ban on distilling liquor at home.
Arguments in the case, known as Department of Justice v. McNutt, will likely take place next year, with a decision coming by late June or early July.
For more than a century, Congress has limited the location of distilling to prevent tax evasion. Under the law at issue in the case, enacted in 1868, a “person may not produce distilled spirits at home for personal use.” Any person who uses or possesses stills or other equipment to produce distilled spirits in “any dwelling house” or shed, yard or enclosure faces criminal penalties.
Violators face fines and up to five years in prison. The violator’s home and property within it are also subject to forfeiture.
Congress approved the restrictions after determining that there was rampant tax evasion by commercial distillers. At that time, the tax rate for spirits was $2 per gallon, more than their market price, and commercial distillers found it cheaper to bribe revenue officers than pay the tax, according to a House report from 1867. Lawmakers determined that “at least seven-eights” of spirits went untaxed at the time.
The legislation that ultimately would prohibit home distilling cut the tax rate and required the duties to be paid before the spirits were removed from warehouses. There are no exceptions for distilled spirits made for personal or family use.
The dispute over the longstanding ban on home distilling was brought by the Hobby Distillers Association and one of its members, who wants to distill spirits at his home and argued that the home-distilling prohibition exceeded Congress’ enumerated powers, including its taxing power. A federal district court sided with the plaintiffs and found the ban unconstitutional.
The location restrictions enacted by Congress in the 1800s “criminalize conduct of persons not subject to the tax” and don’t “touch the product to be taxed,” the district court said.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit then upheld most of that decision and said that the limits on home distilling are not “plainly adapted” to support the government’s taxing power, since the restrictions reduce revenue by barring people from making distilled spirits that could be taxed.
The 5th Circuit said that upholding the ban would let Congress “criminalize nearly any at-home conduct only because it has the possibility of concealing taxable activity.”
In urging the Supreme Court to take up the case, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the lower court decision striking down the ban is “erroneous.”
Congress, he wrote in the appeal, restricted home distilling “because a distiller can more easily conceal a distilling operation or thwart necessary inspections — thereby evading the requisite tax — if the still is located in a dwelling-house or connected structure.”
Lawyers for the would-be distillers agreed that the Supreme Court should step in and decide the constitutionality of the ban, which they said exceeds Congress’s power under the Taxation and Necessary and Proper Clauses of the Constitution.
They warned in court papers that “there is no limit to the government’s claim of power to criminalize local conduct that might conceal taxable activity.”