Skip to content

Government & PolicyDeveloping

Supreme Court agrees to review federal ban on distilling spirits at home

By

Coverage spectrum

Covered by 15 outlets, mostly right-leaning (60%).

20 articles in total, 3 of them opinion. The spectrum counts each outlet once and leaves opinion out. How we measure bias

Copper still spouting clear liquid into copper cups with a thermometer, in a distillery setting.
Image via CBS NewsHow images are chosenReport this image

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to review a federal ban on distilling spirits at home, a law dating to 1868. Plaintiffs challenging the ban, including Ohio brewery owner John Ream and the Buckeye Institute, argue that it exceeds Congress’s constitutional power. The case, Department of Justice v. Scott McNutt, will test how far Congress can go under the Necessary and Proper Clause. According to The Hill, the Trump administration urged the justices to take the case, saying a lower court panel’s ruling threatens the ban’s viability. The high court will hear oral arguments in a later session.

Headline and summary written by Mantle’s AI from the coverage below, under published rules. How this works

What happened

Key points

Each point shows who reports it, from Far Left to Far Right.

  1. The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to review the federal ban on distilling spirits at home.

    Reported byFar Left1Left4Center1Right4Far Right3See the outletsHide the outlets
    Far Left
    HuffPost
    Left
    Bloomberg, NBC News, CBS News, The Independent
    Center
    The Hill
    Right
    The Center Square, New York Post, The Washington Times, Washington Examiner
    Far Right
    Just the News, The Daily Wire, Fox News

  2. The ban dates to 1868 and is one of the oldest federal restrictions on home liquor production.

    Reported byFar Left1Left1Right3Far Right2See the outletsHide the outlets
    Far Left
    HuffPost
    Left
    The Independent
    Right
    New York Post, The Washington Times, Washington Examiner
    Far Right
    The Daily Wire, Fox News

  3. Under the federal law, people caught distilling at home face up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

    One outletJust the News· Far Right

  4. A lower court panel had declared the restrictions unconstitutional before the high court took the case.

    One outletThe Hill· Center

  5. The Trump administration urged the justices to take up the case.

    One outletThe Hill· Center

  6. The case is captioned Department of Justice v. Scott McNutt.

    One outletWashington Examiner· Right

What is contested

Where accounts differ

Points the coverage does not agree on, and who says what.

  • The 1868 ban on home distilling is unconstitutional.

    Challengers, including the Buckeye Institute and John Ream, argue the law exceeds Congress’s constitutional power. According to The Hill, the Trump administration says a lower court took a “blinkered view” and that its ruling threatens the ban’s viability.

How each side tells it

Compare views

Every side reports that the Supreme Court agreed to review the federal ban on home distilling, a law dating to 1868. Left outlets mostly use neutral constitutional wording, while right outlets emphasize the law’s age, its prison penalties and federal power.

  • the left

    5 outlets

    Left outlets mostly headline the review in neutral terms as a Supreme Court decision on whether the ban is constitutional, while HuffPost centers its headline on the Reconstruction-era origin and its description on people celebrating the move.

    Supreme Court to decide legality of ban on distilling liquor at home
    CBS NewsLeftAll left-leaning headlines

  • the center

    1 outlet

    The Hill’s headline puts the age of the law first, framing the case as whether a 160-year-old home distilling ban is constitutional.

    Supreme Court to decide if 160-year-old home distilling ban is constitutional
    The HillCenterAll center headlines

  • the right

    9 outlets · 2 opinion

    Right outlets stress the law’s age and federal power over Congress, while Fox News’ headline frames it around prison risk for home distillers and the Daily Wire leans into the consumer angle.

    Making whiskey at home could land you in prison, but Supreme Court may change that
    Fox NewsFar RightAll right-leaning headlines

The words they chose

Language to notice

Words that carry a judgement beyond the facts. Tap a highlighted word anywhere on the page to see why.

  • Left0

    No loaded words in its own voice.

  • Center0

    No loaded words in its own voice.

  • Right2

    antiquated relicAlcohol Lovers, Rejoice!

In the outlets’ own words

  • Loaded modifier

    antiquated relicMore neutral: 1868 federal law

    Calling the 1868 law an antiquated relic presents an opinion about it as fact.

    The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to review an antiquated relic of Reconstruction-era politics that bans distilling spirits in private homes.

    Used byJust the News (Far Right)

  • Sensational language

    Alcohol Lovers, Rejoice!More neutral: Supreme Court to hear challenge to 158-year-old distilling law

    A celebratory headline presents the court's decision as a win for drinkers, which the reported facts do not establish.

    Alcohol Lovers, Rejoice! Supreme Court Poised to Hear Challenge to 158-Year-Old Distilling Law

    Used byRedState (Far Right)

Words quoted from someone else (2)Hide the quoted words

Loaded words that outlets reported someone else saying. They show what was said, not how the outlet chose to say it.

  • Loaded modifier

    Quoted

    blinkered viewMore neutral: narrow reading of the law

    Attributes narrow-mindedness to the lower court, a judgement on its reasoning rather than a neutral description of its ruling.

    …administration urged the justices to get involved, saying the lower court took a “blinkered view” and its decision threatens the viability of...

    Quoted byThe Hill (Center)

    These are the Trump administration’s words. The outlets are reporting them.

  • Loaded modifier

    Quoted

    antiquated relicMore neutral: the 1868 law

    Describes the 1868 law as outdated, a characterization the excerpt attributes to the plaintiffs rather than presenting as established fact.

    The plaintiffs challenging the prohibition claim the 1868 law is an antiquated relic of Reconstruction-era politics.

    Quoted byThe Independent (Left)

    These are the plaintiffs’s words. The outlets are reporting them.

See the full language guide

See for yourself

Side by side

What each side leads with and what it leaves out. Open a side to read its headlines.

From the left

5 outlets

Leads with

  • constitutionality of the ban
  • Reconstruction-era origin
  • celebration by home distillers
See the 5 headlines from the leftHide the headlines
  • HuffPostFar LeftAssociated Press report

    Supreme Court Agrees To Review Reconstruction-era Ban On Home Distilleries

    People who want to make hard liquor in their own homes are celebrating the move by the high court.

    Read at HuffPost (opens in a new tab)
  • The IndependentLeftAssociated Press report

    Supreme Court will review ban on distilling spirits in private homes

    Plaintiffs challenging the prohibition on home distilling claim the 1868 law is an antiquated relic of Reconstruction-era politics

    Read at The Independent (opens in a new tab)

    Also published by New York Post. It counts once.

  • CBS NewsLeft

    Supreme Court to decide legality of ban on distilling liquor at home

    The Supreme Court on Monday said it will consider the constitutionality of a nearly 160-year-old federal ban on distilling liquor at home.

    Read at CBS News (opens in a new tab)
  • NBC NewsLeft

    High spirits: Supreme Court to decide fate of federal ban on home distilling

    The Supreme Court announced it will consider whether to strike down a longstanding federal ban on distilling spirits at home.

    Read at NBC News (opens in a new tab)
  • BloombergLeft

    US Ban on Making Liquor at Home to Be Reviewed by Supreme Court

    The US Supreme Court agreed to consider the constitutionality of the federal ban on home distilleries in a clash that will test the power of Congress.

    Read at Bloomberg (opens in a new tab)

From the center

1 outlet

Leads with

  • age of the ban
  • constitutional question
  • Trump administration’s request to the court
See the headline from the centerHide the headlines
  • The HillCenter

    Supreme Court to decide if 160-year-old home distilling ban is constitutional

    The Supreme Court said Monday it will consider whether the government can ban people from distilling spirits at home, after a lower panel declared restrictions dating back to the 1860s unconstitutional. …

    Read at The Hill (opens in a new tab)

From the right

9 outlets · 2 opinion

Leads with

  • 1868 age of the law
  • prison penalties
  • limits of congressional power
  • home whiskey and personal freedom
See the 11 headlines from the rightHide the headlines

Articles you open from here build My Mix, a private picture of how your reading spreads across the spectrum, kept on this device. What is My Mix?

The left is Far Left and Left together. The right is Right and Far Right together. Every outlet keeps its own five-point rating.

Who reported it when

How the coverage built up

  • Left

    First to report

    Bloomberg, Oct 19, 9:32 AM EDT

  • Center

    4 min later

    Its first report, Oct 19, 9:36 AM EDT

  • Right

    3 min later

    Its first report, Oct 19, 9:35 AM EDT

See the order the outlets reported inHide the order
  1. BloombergLeftOct 19, 9:32 AM EDT
  2. The Center SquareRightOct 19, 9:35 AM EDT
  3. The HillCenterOct 19, 9:36 AM EDT
  4. NBC NewsLeftOct 19, 9:37 AM EDT
  5. CBS NewsLeftOct 19, 9:52 AM EDT
  6. The IndependentLeftOct 19, 10:00 AM EDT
  7. The Washington TimesRightOct 19, 10:18 AM EDT
  8. Washington ExaminerRightOct 19, 10:30 AM EDT
  9. The Daily WireFar RightOct 19, 10:57 AM EDT
  10. New York PostRightOct 19, 12:36 PM EDT
  11. HuffPostFar LeftOct 19, 2:01 PM EDT
  12. TownhallFar RightOct 19, 5:30 PM EDT
  13. The Epoch TimesFar RightOct 19, 5:31 PM EDT
  14. Fox NewsFar RightOct 21, 6:18 PM EDT

Times are the ones the outlets published in their own feeds, in Eastern time. Opinion is left out. Just the News gave only a date, so it is not placed.

Read next

Help someone else find the truth beneath the surface

Most people see one side of a story. Share this one, so they can see how every side is telling it and decide for themselves.

Email it

Seen a mistake? Tell us what is wrong with this page