Court Holds Federal Ban on Home-Distilling Exceeds Congress' Enumerated Powers [pdf]

50 点作者 thebeardisred10 个月前

12 条评论

lolinder10 个月前

Since 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.

评论 #40950824 未加载

talkingtab10 个月前

This 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"

评论 #40951200 未加载

kragen10 个月前

i'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 clerkit's surprising that the permanent injunction was granted. that's a very hard-line stancethis 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!

Hizonner10 个月前

OMG, they're coming for Wickard v. Filburn.

评论 #40950606 未加载

评论 #40950619 未加载

评论 #40950817 未加载

评论 #40951016 未加载

评论 #40950660 未加载

评论 #40950597 未加载

评论 #40950566 未加载

评论 #40950756 未加载

评论 #40950583 未加载

评论 #40950610 未加载

评论 #40950534 未加载

giantg210 个月前

I'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.

评论 #40951788 未加载

kelnos10 个月前

This 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.

评论 #40950662 未加载

评论 #40950761 未加载

评论 #40951817 未加载

fn-mote10 个月前

It’s a district court in Texas, not the Supreme Court. Don’t get excited.

评论 #40950674 未加载

评论 #40950551 未加载

daft_pink10 个月前

I 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.

评论 #40951802 未加载

评论 #40950956 未加载

ChrisArchitect10 个月前

[dupe]More discussion: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40941292">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40941292</a>

yieldcrv10 个月前

so although most of the commentary and airtime is alarmist about how some regulations that maintain order will be struckthere 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?

评论 #40950577 未加载

monero-xmr10 个月前

Could it be, that Chevron being overturned has positive outcomes for the common man? I’m shocked

评论 #40950693 未加载

评论 #40950698 未加载

jmyeet10 个月前

History 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]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney</a>[2]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford</a>[3]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_slip_(U.S._Senate)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_slip_(U.S._Senate)</a>[4]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_Post,_Inc._v._Board_of_Governors_of_the_Federal_Reserve_System" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_Post,_Inc._v._Board_of_...</a>

评论 #40950663 未加载

评论 #40950645 未加载