A Columbus-based free-market public policy think tank is representing a Licking County resident threatened with hard time for distilling small amounts of hard liquor.
With representation from The Buckeye Institute, Licking County resident John Ream is challenging the federal government’s ban on the home distilling of spirits. They argue that the prohibition of home distilling is an overreach of congressional authority under Article I of the U.S. Constitution and that it runs afoul of the Tenth Amendment.
Ream, an engineer by trade, and the think tank are appealing a March 20 ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The lower court dismissed the case, saying, “Ream lacks standing to obtain pre-enforcement review of the challenged statutes.”
“Adopting Mr. Ream’s proposed standard would unlock the courthouse doors to any plaintiff who wishes to use federal courts to adjudicate their general complaints about how the government conducts its business,” U.S. District Judge Edmund A. Sargus Jr. wrote in the ruling. Citing a previous ruling, the judge added that a “plaintiff does not have standing simply because she believes a law is unconstitutional or because she has a policy objection to a particular governmental action.”
Despite Ream’s concerns about prosecution, Sargus wrote that the court “cannot conclude that Mr. Ream has shown a credible or imminent threat of prosecution.”
“Since Mr. Ream cannot establish that he intends to engage in a course of conduct affected with a constitutional interest and proscribed by the challenged statutes, or that he faces a certainly impending threat of prosecution, he fails to plausibly allege a legal injury for purposes of standing,” Sargus wrote. “Without establishing that he suffered an injury in fact, he lacks standing to seek pre-enforcement review of the federal prohibition on home distilling.”
The Buckeye Institute objected to the ruling, which it asserts bars Ream from clarifying his constitutional rights. They say that if the feds can ban home distilling, the government can ban anything, such as home baking.
“The district court’s ruling denies Mr. Ream the ability to vindicate his constitutional rights without risking criminal liability by actually violating the home-distilling ban,” Andrew M. Grossman, a senior legal fellow at The Buckeye Institute and a partner in BakerHostetler’s Washington, D.C., office, said in a release. “Fortunately, the Sixth Circuit’s own precedent allows Mr. Ream to challenge this unconstitutional law without opening himself up to prosecution.”
Before their wedding, Ream’s wife, Kristin, gifted him a home brewing kit. After trying home brewing for nearly a decade, Ream opened Trek Brewing Company in Newark.
The family-owned business has evolved into a community institution that supports local organizations through the Trek Community Fund. Now, Ream wants to try distilling small amounts of alcohol at home for personal consumption.
However, the think tank said the feds threatened Ream with thousands of dollars in fines and potentially five years in federal prison if he proceeded. The Buckeye Institute said Ream is prepared to secure permits and pay applicable taxes.
“According to novelist William Faulkner, there was no such thing as a bad whiskey; some whiskies are just better than others. Unlike whiskey, there is such a thing as a bad law, and the federal government’s ban on home distilling is just that—a bad and unconstitutional law,” Robert Alt, president and chief executive officer of The Buckeye Institute, said in a release. “And the remedy for this bad law is the U.S. Constitution, which does not grant Congress the power to criminalize distilling in one’s own home for personal consumption.”
The case is Ream v. U.S. Department of the Treasury.
