The home-distilling Supreme Court case is officially headed for review. The October 19 order list grants the government’s petition in Department of Justice v. Scott McNutt, No. 26-204. The justices have agreed to hear the dispute. They have not issued a new ruling authorizing anyone to turn the utility room into a spirits operation, despite what an especially optimistic group chat may conclude.
Dorsey’s case summary describes a federal restriction dating to the 1860s on producing distilled spirits in homes and certain connected locations. The constitutional question concerns whether that restriction is a necessary and proper means of carrying out Congress’s taxing power. This is a dispute about the reach of a federal power, not simply a contest over whether the hobby sounds appealing.
The Fifth and Sixth Circuits reached different conclusions, according to the summary: the former struck down the law, while the latter upheld it. That disagreement gives the Supreme Court a concrete legal conflict to resolve. The October 19 order itself is brief. It grants review without announcing which side will prevail or replacing the eventual reasoning with a helpful tasting note.
Our take: the subject is colorful enough that the constitutional issue could easily disappear beneath jokes about moonshine. Resist that temptation for at least one paragraph. A court assessing a claimed connection between a prohibition and taxation is doing something different from a legislature deciding whether it likes a particular activity. The source of authority matters even when the underlying object comes in a bottle.
It is also worth separating this procedural event from an outcome. Agreeing to hear a case tells us there will be Supreme Court consideration. It does not tell us how a majority will read the statute or the Constitution. The news has not secretly advanced to the final scene because the title would look better on a bumper sticker.
This is a report on today’s grant of review, not legal guidance or instructions for distillation. The actual order and a plain-language case summary are linked below. For the next update, look for an argument schedule and substantive filings. Until then, the safest thing to distill from the announcement is the fact that the justices have taken the case.
Sources and photograph
Supreme Court, October 19 order list, case 26-204. Dorsey, October 19 Supreme Court update.
Archival Supreme Court building photograph, December 2004. Not an October 19 hearing. Photo: Duncan Lock (Dflock); CC BY-SA 3.0. Display copy resized. Where applicable, the resized photograph retains the stated ShareAlike license. Original photograph and rights record. Image-use terms.
More from this Daily Junk Food section.
Facts first. Side-eye included.
DJF separates what is confirmed from what is claimed—and tells you why this particular mess is worth your time.
Dana Side-Eye
Receipts, Rumors & Internet NonsenseDana reads the fine print, checks the timeline, and keeps one eyebrow permanently raised. She covers viral claims, internet pile-ons, and suspiciously convenient explanations.
“Screenshots are forever. So is the side-eye.”