最高法院周一同意审理一项针对重建时期禁止在私人住宅蒸馏酒精饮料的禁令的挑战。
Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to the Reconstruction-era ban on distilling alcohol in private homes.
为何重要：美国人可以合法在家酿造啤酒或酿造葡萄酒，但在家蒸馏威士忌、伏特加或其他烈性酒可能导致联邦监禁。最高法院可能改变这一现状。
Why it matters: Americans can legally brew beer or make wine at home, but making whiskey, vodka or other spirits can land them in federal prison. The Supreme Court could change that.
推动酒类政策：最高法院将审理司法部诉麦克纳特案（Department of Justice v. McNutt），这是保守派第5美国上诉法庭四月作出的一项裁决，该裁决认为近160年的家庭蒸馏酒禁令违宪，并且是对国会征税权的越权。
Driving the booze: SCOTUS will review Department of Justice v. McNutt, an April ruling by the conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found the nearly 160-year-old home-distilling ban unconstitutional and an overreach of Congress' taxing power.
- 在家蒸馏酒可能面临最高五年监禁、1万美元罚款或两者并处。
• Distilling in your home carries a penalty of up to five years in prison, a $10,000 fine or both.
- 第六巡回上诉法庭在另一起四月裁决中得出相反结论，即在Ream v. Department of the Treasury案中认为，国会可以限制家庭蒸馏酒以保护联邦酒精税收。
• The 6th Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in a separate April ruling for Ream v. Department of the Treasury, arguing Congress can restrict distilling at home to protect federal alcohol tax collections. What they're saying:
他们说：倡导者认为，国会通过一项旨在防止商业蒸馏者欺诈的措施禁止家庭蒸馏酒，已经越权，据美联社报道 • 政府表示，国会在此事上行事在其权限范围内，因为该限制旨在阻止生产者逃避联邦消费税，据美联社报道。
Advocates argue that Congress overstepped their powers by banning distilling in the home through a measure meant to prohibit fraud from commercial distillers, per the Associated Press • The government says Congress acted within its authority as the restriction was intended to stop producers from evading federal excise taxes, per AP.
- 政府认为，解除禁令可能削弱国会执行联邦税法的权力。
• Lifting the ban, the government argues, could undermine Congress' authority to enforce federal tax laws.
摩擦点：两个上诉法庭均同意，仅凭国会的征税权无法授权该禁令。他们在于是否属于根据宪法必要和适当条款收集烈酒税的允许方式上存在分歧。
Friction point: Both appeals courts agreed Congress' taxing power alone doesn't authorize the ban. They split over whether it is a permissible way to collect liquor taxes under the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause.
现实检验：尽管有联邦禁令，但在美国私自蒸馏白酒和月亮酒的做法仍在发生 • 一些州，如西弗吉尼亚州，允许一定程度的家庭蒸馏酒。但就像大麻一样，这些州法律不会凌驾于联邦法律之上。
Reality check: You didn't hear this from us, but the practice of distilling hooch and moonshine still happens in the U.S. despite the federal prohibition • Some states, like West Virginia, allow some home distilling. But, much like marijuana, those state laws don't override federal law.
- 倡导者希望最高法院推翻联邦禁令及其相关的刑事处罚。在家酿酒为何被禁止
• Advocates hope the Supreme Court will strike down the federal ban and its associated criminal penalty. Why distilling drinks at home is banned
回顾： 1868年重建时期，国会作为打击普遍逃税行动的一部分，禁止在住宅及其附属建筑中蒸馏烈酒。
Flashback: Congress banned distilling spirits in homes and connected properties in 1868, during the Reconstruction, as part of a crackdown on widespread tax evasion.
- 这些限制同样适用于啤酒或葡萄酒酿造的某些场所。
• The restrictions also cover certain premises where beer or wine is made.
但：联邦法律允许美国人在家酿造啤酒和葡萄酒，但不允许蒸馏烈酒。
Yes, but: Federal law allows Americans to brew beer and make wine at home, but not distill spirits.
- 蒸馏烈酒需要一种能够酿出更浓烈饮品的工艺，可能伴随火灾隐患和危险的污染风险。如果最高法院推翻禁令会怎样？
• Distilling spirits requires a process that gives people a more concentrated drink and can involve fire hazards and dangerous contamination risks. What happens if SCOTUS overturns the ban?
接下来：即便最高法院推翻禁令，也不意味着人们可以自动开始蒸馏酒精饮料。
What's next: Even if SCOTUS strikes down the ban, this doesn't mean people can start distilling automatically.
- 联邦酒精生产规定可能限制人们在家中能做什么。目前政府要求蒸馏酒精饮料的生产必须获得许可、登记并遵守税收规定。
• Federal alcohol-production rules could limit what people could do at home. The government currently requires permits, registration and tax compliance for the production of distilled spirits.
- 各州也可能自行实施禁令，这将限制人们在家中能够酿造的内容。
• States could also impose their own bans, which would limit what people can make in their homes.
结论：最高法院可能使美国人更容易自行酿酒，但推翻禁令并不一定意味着任何人都能在自家后院合法设置蒸馏器……至少目前还不行。
The bottom line: SCOTUS could make it easier for Americans to produce their own liquor, but overturning the ban wouldn't necessarily mean anyone could legally set up a still in their backyard … yet.