6 ms·
Court Holds Federal Ban on Home-Distilling Exceeds Congress' Enumerated Powers [pdf]
- Hizonner 2y agoOMG, they're coming for Wickard v. Filburn.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- akeck 2y agoYup. I agree.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Forge36 2y agoI don't understand, Wikipedia was still beyond me. Can you share more about what this would mean?
- gizmo686 2y agoThe constitutionality of most federal laws from the last 80 years will be brought into question. Essentially, the constitution grants the federal government a limited set of powers. Anything outside of that scope cannot be regulated at the federal level. Historically, most laws have been written under the authority granted to Congress to regulate interstate commerce, as Wickard v. Filburn ruled that that that authority was to be interperated very broadly. In practice, if Filburn is overturned, it would probably he replaced with a still broad reading to avoid the absolute chaos that a complete reversal would cause.
- teractiveodular 2y agoContext: this is the infamous Supreme Court case that decided the federal government has the right to regulate a farmer growing wheat for his own consumption (and, by extension, pretty much anything else it wants to), because by not buying wheat on the market he's engaging in interstate commerce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
- belorn 2y agoFrom a European perspective, looking at this case the framing seems a bit odd. Roscoe Filburn was a commercial dairy farmer. The Wikipedia article talk about private consumption, but how can consumption inside a commercial venture (feeding the cows) be private? If a farmer here buys fuels for their tractor, that is taxed and filed under the commercial venture of the farm. If the same farmer buys fuel for a private car, it is private consumption and taxed differently. Setting aside tax fraud, there is a very clear line between private consumption and consumption as part of the commercial venture.
- beaglesss 2y agoThat wasn't the question. Question is if interstate commerce. If you grow a plant on your own land and sort of sell it to your own business maybe it's commerce, but only interstate by the most disingenuous stretch. The EU equivalent would be EU constitution allowing restriction on internation commerce but then considering commerce entirely within France to be internation because hypothetically people in France might have otherwise bought from Germany.
- belorn 2y agoWe kind of have this kind of regulation in EU. A classic example is that commercial eggs must not be washed. This is made into an EU regulation and part of the reason for it is to enable and encourage free trade by having everyone using the same rules. Free trade was one of the founding principles of the EU and shared regulations for food production are fairly often referenced when people discuss the pro and cons of EU membership. In some cases I have seen regulations relaxed in my own country in order to comply with the EU regulation, and at other times been made more strict, all for the goal of more trade between countries.
- teractiveodular 2y agoCommercial eggs, yes, but the EU does not try to stop you from washing eggs that you eat yourself. The court case discussed here did.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- duskwuff 2y agoNot only that, there's a fairly clear hint on page 4 that, given a suitable case, the court might have been willing to find against ATF regulations on the manufacture of prohibited firearms or accessories as well.
- kjkjadksj 2y agoWould the rest of the drug laws be in question too?
- nordsieck 2y ago> Would the rest of the drug laws be in question too? All of the state laws are in the clear. I don't actually know if the Federal drug laws are justified under the commerce clause.
- Tuna-Fish 2y agoThey are, see Gonzales v. Raich. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
- duskwuff 2y agoI don't see why not. Gonzales v. Raich held that drug laws were permissible under the Commerce Clause (even in the absence of any legal commerce in those drugs - go figure), but I wouldn't put it past the court to overturn that. Or, for that matter: where in the Constitution does it say that Congress has the power to regulate the manufacture and use of nuclear weapons? (To be clear: I think this is an absurd line of reasoning.)
- JoshTriplett 2y ago> Or, for that matter: where in the Constitution does it say that Congress has the power to regulate the manufacture and use of nuclear weapons? Wickard v Filburn was "your transaction intrastate led you to buy less interstate so we can regulate you"; that is a ridiculous ruling. That doesn't mean there should be no narrower rulings to justify specific classes of regulation.
- gizmo686 2y agoThe linked opinion makes a point of explaining how this case differs frim Wickard v Filburn. For as crazy as the 5th circut and Supreme Court are, I don't see either of them being crazy enough to take on Wickard v Filburn.
- Hizonner 2y ago> The linked opinion makes a point of explaining how this case differs frim Wickard v Filburn. My take is that the district court has to show deference to Wickard... but that doesn't mean that the whole issue can't be teed up to become a challenge to Wickard on appeal. > For as crazy as the 5th circur and Supreme Court are, I don't see either of them being crazy enough to take on Wickard v Filburn. They're pretty gosh-darned crazy is all I'm saying here.
- BurningFrog 2y agoNot a decade to soon! ...if true, which I very much doubt.
- JoshTriplett 2y agoIf the case made it to the supreme court and Wickard v. Filburn was successfully overturned, that'd be a rare bit of positive news from court rulings. (Further detail elsewhere in the thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40950889 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40950889 .)
- skhunted 2y agoCan you elaborate on your view on this? I won’t respond but I am curious what the perspective is on this point of view.
- JoshTriplett 2y agoI edited in a link to a comment elsewhere in the thread explaining in more detail.
- Glyptodon 2y agoOnce I read it, it didn't actually seem like it. Instead, it seems to be saying since booze regulation isn't intended to fully govern the market and production of booze under the commerce clause, enforcement can't include a prohibition as expansive as banning home distilling under the commerce clause (YMMV I think they're saying this is the case because most of the regulations are for collecting revenue, not for controlling how much booze is in commercial circulation). (With a separate rational for why it's not also included in the taxing enforcement power.) I kind of take this to mean that home distilling would be allowed under a very invasive tax/inspection regime? As it seems like there's a strong implication that the other aspects of the taxation on spirits would still apply to home distillation.
- fn-mote 2y agoIt’s a district court in Texas, not the Supreme Court. Don’t get excited.
- yieldcrv 2y agoso although most of the commentary and airtime is alarmist about how some regulations that maintain order will be struck there are so many other regulations that really are rackets, are there any pet project cases anybody here is now excited to bring over the next generation of these courts?
- idontwantthis 2y agoHow about not being able to collect rainwater in your backyard?
- teraflop 2y agoI don't think there are any federal laws about collecting rainwater, so this case wouldn't be relevant.
- 6510 2y agohttps://worldwaterreserve.com/is-it-illegal-to-collect-rainwater/ https://worldwaterreserve.com/is-it-illegal-to-collect-rainw... > "Water laws are handled on the state level"
- monero-xmr 2y agoCould it be, that Chevron being overturned has positive outcomes for the common man? I’m shocked
- 7thaccount 2y agoOh I'm sure it has some. The amount of laws that are just blatantly anti freedom is crazy. On the other hand, Chevron has likely been a huge benefit in keeping our air and water from being exponentially worse. A huge corporation being able to dump toxic waste impacts everyone and violates the freedoms of far more people than the corporations they restrict.
- kjkjadksj 2y agoStates have their own EPA that is at least as strict as federal guidelines at least. You might be screwed over in a red state however.
- 7thaccount 2y agoYep. Not everyone lives in California.
- colechristensen 2y agoThis has nothing to do with that. Chevron being overturned means "you have to pass laws not give vague instructions to the executive branch". This is a federal court overturning a written law because it was overreaching.
- beaglesss 2y agoIt's of the same vein of intersecting with regulatory agency powers. A lot of people who's paycheck depend on both cases are real nervous right now, and making a lot of noise to save their dental plan. ATF comes to mind.
- jmyeet 2y agoHistory books will write about the Roberts court in pretty much the same way that history writes about former Supreme Court Chief Justice Rober B. Taney [1], possibly most famous for the Dred Scott decision [2]. This decision is a just a district court decision but you will be seeing a ton of these over the coming years and the playbook will be exactly the same: 1. Challenge some government regulation in a conservative federal district court, probably the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Alabama, Louisiana). Judges in this circuit tend to be very conservative because of Blue Slip system [3]. Any nominee for Federal court by convention requires a sponsoring Senator and the Senators in these states are pretty much always Republicans. It's worse in Texas too because of the way the Fifth Circuit is organized into divisions it's really easy to judge shop; 2. SCOTUS just ended Chevron deference. That means for 40+ years, Congress would pass laws like "The EPA will ensure there's clean air and water" and the EPA would decide what that meant. The Chevron deference part is that courts deferred to Federal agencies whenever any legislative language is ambiguous. Thing is, Congress relied on this when writing legislation for 40+ years. It's also impossible to write legislation for every aspect of regulation. It's simply too much; 3. SCOTUS also ended the statute of limiations (previously 6 years) for challenging any federal regulation through the Corner Post decision [4]. This case got less attention but the impact is going to be massive. Previously when a Federal regulation was made you had 6 years from inception to challenge it. Now the 6 years applies from when the injury begins so you can challenge a 100 year old law by establishing an LLC and claiming injury; 4. A Fifth Circuit court will say the case is open and shut because the legislative language is ambiguous; 5. Other circuits, particularly the 9th Circuit, will interpret things differently. This essentially forces SCOTUS to act to resolve different circuits having different interpretation. This court in particular will rule against regulation. We will see for years to come a torrent of cases that will dismantle every aspect of Federal regulation. What's crazy is some people who will absolutely be hurt by this will celebrate it. Arsenic and lead in your water will hurt you. Dumping waste into the Chesapeake Bay will hurt you. Polluting the air will hurt you. The only people this will benefit is the extremely rich who get to get slightly richer. Roberts will be remembered for this, stripping voting rights, Dobbs, presidential immunity (which will be up there with Dred Scott) and, of course, Citizens United, which decided that money = speech. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_slip_(U.S._Senate) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_slip_(U.S._Senate) [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_Post,_Inc._v._Board_of_Governors_of_the_Federal_Reserve_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_Post,_Inc._v._Board_of_...
- talkingtab 2y agoThis is an interesting discussion. We have come to accept the government playing a large role in many activities. While I am not particularly interested in distilling my own vodka, I do have similar interests. And certainly one has to wonder at the role of commercial corporation in regulations. Cui bono. Also, to my mind it is worth reading any court opinion that contains this line "... Congress did nothing more than statutorily ferment a crime"
- kragen 2y agoif this decision stands, at best it means you'll have your state government playing a large role in many activities, unless you live in idaho or something
- kelnos 2y agoThis illustrates the huge problem with courts' interpretation of the Commerce Clause: it's used in some very useful ways to allow for some very useful regulation and lawmaking... but it's also used in some messed up ways, like this one. (Arguably this one is a fairly minor bad way.) I'm not sure what the solution is. Throwing out the expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause could be disastrous in the general sense, even if it ends up striking some laws that are clearly an abuse of federal power over the states. But the real problem is the motivation: conservatives in the US seem to want to dismantle the federal government and turn over nearly every domestic concern to the states (except where they get to impose "conservative, Christian values" on the rest of the country, of course). I get why that can be an attractive proposition in some areas, but overall I think it would be disastrous. Many problems we face today (that we did not face in the late 1700s) more or less require a coordinated, national response, via legislation and regulation. And on top of that, we can expect decisions based on ideology, and the future looks bad to me. Nationwide environmental protections set by the EPA? Nope, unconstitutional, interstate commerce doesn't cover that sort of thing. And things like California setting strict emission standards that end up being the standard? Nope, can't do that either, that's interference in interstate commerce.
- beaglesss 2y agoInterstate compacts (same law across most/all states) were used before the bastardized version of interstate commerce. Can be used again.
- kelnos 2y agoI don't think that will help today. Many of these important issues will be agreed upon by around half the states, and vehemently opposed by the other half. Half the country in agreement is still not enough.
- beaglesss 2y agoThen you can amend the constitution, or Congress can agree to let those states secede.
- lolinder 2y agoSince we're already getting insta-reactions from people who haven't read the decision, here are some clarifying points: * This is a district court decision, not even an appeals court much less the Supreme Court. * This decision rests on an interpretation of Congress's powers and therefore has nothing to do with Chevron or Loper. It's an interesting decision that may have repercussions if it's appealed, but not directly related to any recent drama.
- skhunted 2y agoI’m not a lawyer but my understanding is that lower courts try to see where SCOTUS is going and act accordingly. SCOTUS is going in the direction of limiting federal powers. This can be both good and bad and I’m not here commenting on what I think of this direction but it seems to me that recent decisions do play a role in terms of how the lower courts perceive the direction of things.
- kragen 2y agothey're not supposed to do that, which is why this decision devotes so many pages to explaining how this decision is actually in accordance with all the previous court decisions that somehow mysteriously failed to strike down this law at any time in the last 156 years but surely pittman is hoping the supreme court will take the opportunity presented by the almost inevitable appeal of this case to narrow federal authority dramatically
- skhunted 2y agoA friend of mine is a lawyer for DOJ and he indicated to me that lower courts do try to suss out where SCOTUS is going and rule accordingly. I don’t believe this ruling would have been made if recent SCOTUS rulings were different. I have not talked to him about this case and we don’t talk legal stuff much so he may have just been humoring me with my perception that lower courts try to suss out where the winds are blowing. One can use precedents and case law to pretty much argue anything (within reason) since there are enough contradicting rulings over the last 200 years. In mathematical logic terminology the Constitution and legal precedents together do not form a consistent system. Thus a lot of this stuff comes down to what is in fashion today so to speak. Judge Napolitano wrote an argument on why secession is a right of each state and wrote an argument for why this wasn’t specifically written in the Constitution. A lot of this stuff is just making shit up or selectively using precedents to justify a desired conclusion. One can do this in an inconsistent system.
- ChrisArchitect 2y ago[dupe] More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40941292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40941292
- kragen 2y agoi'm not used to seeing typographical errors like 'it's progency', 'does not get rebuff causation', and 'and it despite providing (...), it' in federal court opinions. they also quote the same text from §5178 twice and say that a statute from 01868 ce is 'about 130 years old'. i bet pittman regrets not proofing his clerk's draft and maybe hiring that clerk it's surprising that the permanent injunction was granted. that's a very hard-line stance this seems very likely to end up in the supreme court. like lopez and morrison, it substantially narrows the authority conferred on congress by wickard and raich, and the government is virtually certain to appeal to the circuit court. if they do not, or if cert is denied or the circuit court affirms this judgment and it ends there, it seems guaranteed that other members of the association (or other homebrewers) will file suit in other circuits, either obtaining a circuit split, which would virtually guarantee that the supreme court grant cert, or an effective elimination of the law—and many others!
- daft_pink 2y agoI don’t quite understand why this law must be a tax and they can’t claim some other power gives the authority to do that? I’m not arguing either way I just don’t quite understand.
- Tuna-Fish 2y agoBecause the constitution gives the federal government a set of enumerated powers, and after the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment, they have nothing else that applies. The state could make it illegal if they wanted to. This is challenging the ability of the federal government to do so.
- Glyptodon 2y agoSo I think the argument that is advanced for tax authority allowing such a restriction were the tax on the still and not on the output seemed a bit hard to parse, but the commerce clause not being applicable because there's no overall expansive restriction on the booze market intended by Congress seemed fair.
- giantg2 2y agoI've always wanted to try distilling. I even looked into licensing. The ban on residential distilling made it impossible. It would be great if they had a hobby license that carried a smaller bond requirement too. Seems like this ruling will make permits accessible to individuals, but they're likely to keep all the other stipulations.
- antonellaleo 2y ago[flagged]