Aggregator
Pirates acquire Ron Marinaccio in trade with Padres, DFA Dennis Santana
Will The Supreme Court Legalize Home Distilling?
Authored by Andrew M. Grossman & Robert Alt via RealClearPolicy,
Ohioan John Ream is an accomplished aerospace engineer and brewery owner. He would like to try his hand at making Bourbon. However, federal law prohibits distilling spirited beverages at home. On Monday, he filed a petition in the Supreme Court of the United States asking it to hear his case, which raises important questions about the limits of federal power.
Home distilling is, of course, as American as apple pie, and certainly a lot older. George Washington's Mount Vernon estate featured a distillery that, by 1799, was producing more than 10,000 gallons of whiskey per year. Nonetheless, Congress barred distilling inside any "dwelling house" or "shed, yard, or inclosure connected with a dwelling house" in what was, by all indications, a sop to the temperance movement. Later, Prohibition killed off what remained of craft spirits production.
The home-distilling ban ultimately survived both Prohibition and repeal, along with the distilled-spirits tax. Under the law, distilling, or even owning a set-up still, in a prohibited location like a home is punishable by fines, property forfeiture, and imprisonment. Given the draconian penalties, it's little surprise that hobby distilling has floundered while craft brewing and small-batch winemaking, both of which the law allows, have flourished.
Mr. Ream filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging whether that disparity has any lawful basis. The federal government, after all, possesses only the limited powers specified in the constitutional text. States, meanwhile, retain broad authority to legislate for the public good. This vertical separation of powers between the federal government and the states promotes accountability, responsiveness, and ultimately individual freedom.
Or it would, if the Court hadn't refashioned the Constitution's Commerce Clause, which authorizes Congress to "regulate Commerce...among the several States," and had long been understood to reach only interstate trade and the channels of such trade. But in the 1942 Wickard v. Filburn ruling, the Supreme Court eviscerated such limitations. At issue was a Soviet-inspired law capping wheat production to "rationalize" the agricultural sector and, by limiting its volume, drive up prices. Roscoe Filburn was an Ohio farmer who exceeded the imposed cap and grew enough wheat to feed both his family and the animals on his farm. The Court held that Congress may regulate any activity that, in aggregate, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Because widespread home-production of wheat would prevent Congress from regulating interstate prices, Congress could therefore restrict home production as part of its price-regulation scheme.
For the six decades following Wickard, the Court demurred in enforcing the Commerce Clause's limits. But by the mid-1990s, the Court appeared ready to chart a new course. First, it struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act in a 1995 decision, United States v. Lopez, reasoning that merely carrying a gun near a school was too attenuated from interstate commerce to substantially affect it. Then the Court doubled down in United States v. Morrison (2000), which held unconstitutional a federal statute authorizing lawsuits by victims of gender-motivated violence. Morrison pared back Wickard's aggregation principle, suggesting that it applies only to inherently economic activities, and refused to defer to Congress's view on whether local activities substantially affect interstate commerce. Legal observers proclaimed a nascent "federalism revolution."
It didn't last. The promise of Lopez and Morrison was cut short by a 2005 decision, Gonzales v. Raich, upholding the Controlled Substances Act's prohibition on the home cultivation and consumption of marijuana subject to state regulation. Going well beyond Wickard, Raich applied its aggregation principle to noncommercial activity and adopted the maximally deferential "rational basis" standard for assessing Congress's need to regulate non-interstate activities. Taken on its own terms, Raich all but declares that anything goes with regard to regulation under the Commerce Clause.
One doubts that is the view of the current Court. Justice Thomas is the sole holdover from Raich, from which he dissented. His opinion explained how, if the Raich majority were right, then "the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers." Chief Justice Roberts wielded that same logic in his opinion holding that Obamacare's "individual mandate" to purchase health insurance was not authorized by the Commerce Clause, and the dissent joined by Justices Thomas and Samuel Alito reasoned similarly. Although the justices appointed by President Trump have not been afforded the occasion to opine on the Commerce Clause's limits, all three take seriously the Constitution's original meaning, its structural features, and the enumeration of powers as a constraint on federal power. Expect them to be more skeptical of assertions of federal authority than was the Raich majority.
John Ream's current challenge to the home-distilling ban takes aim at the excesses of Raich, and would be a meaningful first step toward rekindling the federalism revolution.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the home-distilling prohibition, ruling that the ban, while not a tax, "is a necessary and proper means of collecting the federal excise tax on spirits," because stills could be hidden within homes in order to evade taxation.
The more defensible view on this same matter was expressed in a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision by Judge Edith Jones issued eleven days earlier. Far from furthering collection of the tax, the ban serves to "reduce revenue by preventing individuals from making distilled spirits" otherwise subject to taxation. It would be improper to allow Congress to "criminalize nearly any at-home conduct only because it has the possibility of concealing taxable activity."
The split between the Fifth and Sixth Circuits on the home-distilling ban's constitutionality is reason enough for the Supreme Court to take Ream's case, resolve this conflict, and provide national uniformity in the law. But there's also a need for further clarity on the Commerce Clause and Raich's continued viability. Given the massive growth of the federal government and its intrusion into every facet of modern life, there are few issues more important or pressing for the Court's consideration.
Andrew M. Grossman and Robert Alt represent John Ream in his litigation and also the plaintiffs who prevailed before the Fifth Circuit. Mr. Alt is President and CEO of The Buckeye Institute, where Mr. Grossman is a Senior Legal Fellow.
Tyler Durden Thu, 07/23/2026 - 22:35LSU’s Lane Kiffin reveals surprise reason he deleted his social media
Oppressive new ranking for flight attendants hits turbulence in California
Jacoby Brissett participates in practice as Cardinals contract questions continue to swirl
Two dogs dragged by heartless owner behind car on NYC street have recovered, ready for new homes
Mapping Americans' Per Capita Health Care Spending By State
Health care represents a major share of consumer spending in America, but the amount spent per resident varies considerably by location.
New data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis highlights the differences in per-capita health care spending across the country in 2024.
The map below, via Visual Capitalist's Srijaa Chatterjee, ranks every state using the latest Personal Consumption Expenditures by State data from the BEA. Figures are reported in current dollars and allocated according to residents’ state of residence.
Which States Spend the Most on Health Care?Below is a ranking of states based on per-person health care spending:
Rank State Per-Capita Health Care Spending 1 Alaska $14,044 2 District of Columbia $13,865 3 South Dakota $12,451 4 New York $12,221 5 West Virginia $12,055 6 Delaware $11,987 7 Massachusetts $11,985 8 North Dakota $11,667 9 Vermont $11,493 10 Indiana $11,071 11 California $11,054 12 Maine $10,913 13 New Hampshire $10,682 14 Connecticut $10,639 15 Minnesota $10,567 16 New Jersey $10,468 17 Pennsylvania $10,262 18 Ohio $10,202 19 Nebraska $10,192 20 Louisiana $10,148 21 Wisconsin $10,079 22 Missouri $10,036 23 Kentucky $9,964 24 Oregon $9,931 25 Illinois $9,895 26 Rhode Island $9,864 27 Hawaii $9,808 28 Montana $9,747 29 Washington $9,693 30 Wyoming $9,640 31 Florida $9,545 32 Maryland $9,456 33 Virginia $9,123 34 Kansas $9,066 35 Oklahoma $9,052 36 Michigan $9,023 37 Colorado $8,871 38 Tennessee $8,761 39 North Carolina $8,744 40 Georgia $8,680 41 Iowa $8,660 42 Arkansas $8,562 43 Arizona $8,556 44 New Mexico $8,469 45 Mississippi $8,135 46 Idaho $8,078 47 Alabama $7,980 48 Texas $7,807 49 South Carolina $7,741 50 Nevada $7,536 51 Utah $7,233Alaska spent nearly twice as much per resident on health care as Utah in 2024.
Several Northeastern states, along with South Dakota and Washington, D.C., also ranked near the top. Meanwhile, much of the Mountain West and South recorded below-average spending.
Why Do Some States Spend More Than Others?Higher spending does not necessarily mean residents receive more medical care.
Numerous studies have found that differences in prices, especially for hospital and physician services, explain much more of the variation in U.S. health spending than differences in how often people use care. Administrative costs, provider wages, and regional labor markets also play major roles.
State-specific factors matter as well. Alaska’s remote geography and limited provider network make delivering care significantly more expensive, while states with older populations often spend more because seniors tend to use more medical services.
Broader insurance coverage can also increase the share of care captured in personal consumption expenditures.
Health Care Spending Continues to ClimbNationally, health care expenditures continue to rise.
CMS projects U.S. health spending will approach $9 trillion annually by 2034, driven by increased enrollment in Medicare and Medicaid, along with continued growth in health care prices. Despite already spending more per person than any comparable high-income country, the U.S. is expected to devote an even larger share of its economy to health care over the next decade.
International comparisons show the U.S. spends substantially more on health care than other high-income countries, largely because medical services cost more rather than because Americans use dramatically more care.
As national spending continues to rise, the nearly twofold gap between states highlights how geography remains a major factor in what Americans ultimately spend on health care.
If you enjoyed this visualization, check out Americans Pay More for Healthcare, Yet Have Shorter Life Expectancy on the Voronoi app, where you can discover thousands of data-driven charts from trusted sources covering health, economics, markets, and more.
Tyler Durden Thu, 07/23/2026 - 22:10Sprawling ‘fraud factory’ discovered hiding in plain sight on busy California high street
Powerful storm sees 2,000 lightning strikes spark 35 wildfires in just hours on West Coast
Tropical Storm Bertha weakens to tropical depression as all watches, warnings scrapped
Rotary elevates anti-Israel ‘conspiracy’ theorist in Orange County
Jon Bon Jovi abruptly ends show at Madison Square Garden
Jon Bon Jovi abruptly ends show at Madison Square Garden
‘Spider-Man’ superhero, 20, saves the day helping man in wheelchair pass six lanes of traffic
Mamdani and Ms. Rachel built their brands on war — and business is booming
Waste Of The Day: Education Fraud Sweeps Nation
Authored by Jeremy Portnoy via RealClearInvestigations,
Topline: Since 2019, school districts across 24 states and Puerto Rico have lost $225 million to fraud confirmed by the U.S. Department of Education inspector general's semiannual report to Congress. No more than $67 million has been recovered.
Key facts: Open the Books and the State Financial Officers Foundation documented 74 instances of confirmed school fraud, averaging over $3 million each. There are far more that have gone unprosecuted or undetected.
Florida and Illinois schools each had the most instances of fraud with 11.
Indiana lost the most money - $44 million - due to inflated attendance numbers that increased state funding to two schools. The schools' founder then allegedly sent the money to companies he owned. The schools closed in 2019, and four alleged conspirators were charged in 2024.
At Broward County Public Schools in Florida, information officer Anthony Hunter allegedly used district funds to buy $17 million worth of school supplies from a friend's business, ignoring the competitive bidding process. In return, the friend hired Hunter and his son to work a security job and sold Hunter a house for $150,000 below market value, state prosecutors claim
Chicago Public Schools received $1 million of federal grants meant for Native American students, using an application that included more than 1,000 students of South Asian descent. The district was unable to verify how many students were actually in the program, and agreed to repay the money.
Fraud arguably hits small school districts the hardest because they have fewer budgetary resources to begin with. When Janis Bucknor, former head of Community Preparatory Academy in California, admitted to stealing $3 million from the school over five years, it amounted to one-third of all the school's state and federal funding.
Bucknor spent $220,600 of the money on Disney vacations and also funded her internet shopping and private school tuition for her kids. She was sentenced to three years of home detention and ordered to repay the money.
Summary: The government loses hundreds of billions of dollars to fraud annually, but redirecting money away from children's education is especially egregious.
The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com
Tyler Durden Thu, 07/23/2026 - 21:45