2026-04-10 21:50:23 UTC / 路透社
作者：乔纳森·斯坦普尔
2026年4月10日 晚上9:50 UTC，更新于56分钟前
节点运行失败
2025年2月7日，美国路易斯安那州新奥尔良市的约翰·米诺尔·威姆斯美国上诉法院大楼。路透社/布莱恩·斯奈德
4月10日（路透社）——美国一家上诉法院周五裁定一项实施近158年的联邦家庭酿酒禁令违宪，称这是国会行使税收权力时不必要且不当的手段。
位于新奥尔良的美国第五巡回上诉法院作出裁决，支持非营利组织业余酿酒师协会及其1300名成员中的4人。
订阅《每日案卷》新闻简报，将最新法律新闻直接发送到您的收件箱，开启您的晨间资讯。点击此处注册
他们辩称，人们应有权在家中蒸馏烈酒，无论是作为业余爱好还是个人饮用——其中一名原告甚至提出，这可以用于制作苹果派伏特加配方。
广告 · 继续向下滚动
这项禁令是1868年7月重建时期通过的一项法律的一部分，当时部分目的是为了打击酒类逃税行为，违反者最高可判处五年监禁和10000美元罚款。
由三名法官组成的合议庭主笔裁决的巡回法官伊迪丝·霍兰·琼斯表示，与那些政府可以征收税款的蒸馏酒生产和标签监管法律不同，这项禁令从源头阻止了酿酒活动，实际上反而减少了税收收入。
她还指出，按照政府的逻辑，国会几乎可以将任何可能逃过税务人员注意的家庭活动定为刑事犯罪，包括远程办公和家庭经营业务。
“如果没有任何限制性原则，政府的理论将违反本院仔细解读宪法以避免创设类似警察权的一般性联邦权力的义务，”琼斯写道。
美国司法部未立即置评。另一被告、财政部烟酒税与贸易局也未立即回应置评请求。
代表业余酿酒师协会的律师德文·沃特金斯在采访中称，这一裁决是关于联邦权力界限的重要判决。
为该非营利组织进行上诉辩护的安德鲁·格罗斯曼称，该判决是“个人自由的重要胜利”，让原告能够“追求在家中蒸馏优质饮品的爱好”。
“我期待着品尝他们的作品，”他说。
该判决维持了美国地区法官马克·皮特曼2024年7月在得克萨斯州沃斯堡作出的裁决。当时皮特曼暂停了自己的裁决，以便政府可以提起上诉。
乔纳森·斯坦普尔纽约报道；比尔·伯克罗特编辑
我们的准则：汤森路透信托原则。
US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional
2026-04-10 21:50:23 UTC / Reuters
By Jonathan Stempel
April 10, 2026 9:50 PM UTC Updated 56 mins ago
节点运行失败
The John Minor Wisdom United States Court of Appeals Building stands in New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S., February 7, 2025. REUTERS/Brian Snyder
April 10 (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court on Friday declared unconstitutional a nearly 158-year-old federal ban on home distilling, calling it an unnecessary and improper means for Congress to exercise its power to tax.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled in favor of the nonprofit Hobby Distillers Association and four of its 1,300 members.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
They argued that people should be free to distill spirits at home, whether as a hobby or for personal consumption including, in one instance, to create an apple-pie-vodka recipe.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
The ban was part of a law passed during Reconstruction in July 1868, in part to thwart liquor tax evasion, and subjected violators to up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Writing for a three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Edith Hollan Jones said the ban actually reduced tax revenue by preventing distilling in the first place, unlike laws that regulated the manufacture and labeling of distilled spirits on which the government could collect taxes.
She also said that under the government’s logic, Congress could criminalize virtually any in-home activity that might escape notice from tax collectors, including remote work and home-based businesses.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
“Without any limiting principle, the government’s theory would violate this court’s obligation to read the Constitution carefully to avoid creating a general federal authority akin to the police power,” Jones wrote.
The U.S. Department of Justice had no immediate comment. Another defendant, the Treasury Department’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Devin Watkins, a lawyer representing the Hobby Distillers Association, in an interview called the ruling an important decision about the limits of federal power.
Andrew Grossman, who argued the nonprofit’s appeal, called the decision “an important victory for individual liberty” that lets the plaintiffs “pursue their passion to distill fine beverages in their homes.”
“I look forward to sampling their output,” he said.
The decision upheld a July 2024 ruling by U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman in Fort Worth, Texas. He put his ruling on hold so the government could appeal.
Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Bill Berkrot
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
发表回复