Americans can legally brew beer and make wine at home, but producing even a small amount of whiskey could land them in federal prison.

Now, the U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to weigh in on a 150-year-old federal law prohibiting home distilling, a case that could have implications far beyond the liquor cabinet.

The justices agreed Monday to review the Reconstruction-era restriction, which dates to 1868 and was originally enacted to combat liquor tax evasion.

Robert Alt, president and CEO of the Ohio-based Buckeye Institute, which represents challengers to the ban, told Fox News Digital the decision marks a significant development for home-distilling enthusiasts. "This is a real opportunity for both whiskey and freedom," Alt said.

Among those challenging the prohibition is John Ream, an Ohio brewery owner and former aerospace engineer who wants to distill small quantities of spirits at home for personal consumption.

Ream's legal battle was previously highlighted by Fox News Digital as he awaited word on whether the nation's highest court would intervene.

Under federal law, producing distilled spirits at home can carry penalties of up to five years in prison, a $10,000 fine and possible property forfeiture.

The case centers on whether Congress' constitutional authority to collect taxes also allows it to prohibit an otherwise lawful activity inside a person's home. "What this case boils down to is what is the scope of congressional power?" Alt said. Two federal appeals courts reached conflicting conclusions earlier this year.

The Fifth Circuit struck down the restriction, finding that Congress' taxing authority did not justify the prohibition. The Sixth Circuit upheld the law, concluding it was a permissible means of enforcing federal liquor taxes.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) maintains that the restriction is a legitimate tool for preventing tax evasion and protecting federal revenue. The DOJ declined to comment on the case to Fox News Digital.

Alt, however, argues that allowing Congress to prohibit home distilling under its taxing authority could establish a troubling precedent for other private activities.

He pointed to hobbies such as gardening and working on cars as examples of activities that could theoretically face similar restrictions under the government's legal reasoning.

The attorney also noted that home distilling has deep American roots, including President George Washington.

"The founders would be rolling over in their graves at the suggestion that Congress had the authority to ban and make a felony out of this very American activity," Alt said.

A ruling favoring the federal government would leave the challenged restriction in place, although Congress could still amend the law, Alt said.

Alt said his clients would be willing to pay applicable taxes on spirits produced at home, arguing that taxation should not require an outright prohibition.

The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled oral arguments, but Alt said he anticipates arguments in late February or early March, with a decision potentially arriving by the end of June.