JOHN REAM v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; SECRETARY SCOTT BESSENT; ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO TAX AND TRADE BUREAU; ADMINISTRATOR MARY G. RYAN - Articles

All Content

JOHN REAM v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; SECRETARY SCOTT BESSENT; ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO TAX AND TRADE BUREAU; ADMINISTRATOR MARY G. RYAN

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Apr 21, 2026

Head Comment: MATHIS delivered a separate dissenting opinion.

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Andrew M. Grossman, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Caroline W. Tan, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Andrew M. Grossman, Kristin A. Shapiro, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Washington, D.C., Robert Alt, THE BUCKEYE INSTITUTE, Columbus, Ohio, Patrick T. Lewis, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Caroline W. Tan, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Michael Pepson, AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION, Arlington, Virginia, Thomas A. Berry, CATO INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., Thomas R. McCarthy, Tiffany H. Bates, CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC, Arlington, Virginia, Michael A. Petrino, CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, Washington, D.C., Reilly Stephens, LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER, Austin, Texas, for Amici Curiae.

Judge(s): SILER, KETHLEDGE, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. For much of American history, evading excise taxes on liquor has been nearly a national pastime. At the time of the Revolution, one historian has written, “nearly every farmer distilled his own whiskey and deemed it his inalienable right to evade the tax, and resist the collector whenever a favorable opportunity presented itself for doing so.” Gallus Thomann, Liquor Laws of the United States 58 (1885). Soon after the Constitution’s ratification, in western Pennsylvania, this evasion came by force of arms—in the Whiskey Rebellion, which President Washington put down only after assembling “an army larger than any he had commanded during the Revolution.” Gordon S. Wood, Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789–1815, at 138 (2009). Just after the Civil War, in 1867, a select committee of the House of Representatives heard more than a month of testimony, and concluded: “in the manufacture and sale of tobacco, cigars, and spirits, and especially the latter, the most stupendous frauds are practiced against the government in the collection of its revenue.” H.R. Rep. No. 39-24, at 1 (1867).

The following year Congress enacted comprehensive legislation to end those frauds, which among many other provisions included a ban on distilling spirits in one’s home. Now, almost 160 years later, John Ream argues that the home-distilling ban has been beyond Congress’s enumerated powers all along. We disagree with the district court’s conclusion that Ream lacks standing to bring his claims; but we hold that the ban is a necessary and proper means of collecting the federal excise tax on distilled spirits.

Attachments: