The Buckeye Institute and Washington Policy Center feature the impacts of Senate Bill 6346 on Washington’s economy, writing, “[I]t will cost Washington roughly $4.9 billion in GDP, $3.1 billion in private investment, and about 7,800 jobs,” and urging Washington lawmakers to “look for solutions that preserve the advantages fostered by the state’s “no income tax” past, without jeopardizing its fiscal future.”

BBC News features The Buckeye Institute’s monumental case challenging the federal prohibition on home distilling: U.S. Department of Justice v. McNutt (formerly McNutt v. U.S. Department of Justice), which the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear. “The Supreme Court announced this week that it would reconsider the 1868 legislation forbidding the practice, and hobby distillers hope that their spirits will soon be treated like beer and wine, which are both legal to brew at home across the country.”

Fox News features The Buckeye Institute’s monumental case challenging the federal prohibition on home distilling: U.S. Department of Justice v. McNutt (formerly McNutt v. U.S. Department of Justice), which the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear. “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 Washington Post calls on the U.S. Supreme Court to “let Americans make their own whiskey,” after the court agreed to hear The Buckeye Institute’s monumental case challenging the federal prohibition on home distilling: U.S. Department of Justice v. McNutt (formerly McNutt v. U.S. Department of Justice). “If the government prevails at the high court, the justices will have ratified a new, expansive federal power to regulate all kinds of conduct.”

CNN features The Buckeye Institute’s monumental case challenging the federal prohibition on home distilling: U.S. Department of Justice v. McNutt (formerly McNutt v. U.S. Department of Justice), which the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear. “The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide if the federal government may bar people from distilling liquor at home in an appeal filed by the Trump administration after the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the prohibition, ‘while venerable,’ violated the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution.”

Reuters features The Buckeye Institute’s monumental case challenging the federal prohibition on home distilling: U.S. Department of Justice v. McNutt (formerly McNutt v. U.S. Department of Justice), which the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear. “The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide the legality of a federal ban on the home distilling of alcoholic spirits that was enacted in 1868 after the US Civil War to crack down on liquor tax evasion.”

USA TODAY features The Buckeye Institute’s monumental case challenging the federal prohibition on home distilling: U.S. Department of Justice v. McNutt (formerly McNutt v. U.S. Department of Justice), which the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear. “The Supreme Court will decide whether a nearly 160-year-old federal ban on distilling whiskey and other spirits at home is constitutional…The would-be home brewers who challenged the law include John Ream, an Ohio engineer who crafts his own wine and mead and wants to experiment with spirits.”

CBS News features The Buckeye Institute’s monumental case challenging the federal prohibition on home distilling: U.S. Department of Justice v. McNutt (formerly McNutt v. U.S. Department of Justice), which the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear. “Lawyers for the would-be distillers agreed that the Supreme Court should step in and decide the constitutionality of the ban, which they said exceeds Congress's power under the Taxation and Necessary and Proper Clauses of the Constitution.”

The Newark Advocate features The Buckeye Institute’s monumental case challenging the federal prohibition on home distilling: U.S. Department of Justice v. McNutt (formerly McNutt v. U.S. Department of Justice), which the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear. “The U.S. Supreme Court will review the constitutionality of a federal-home distilling ban that a Newark brewer has been fighting for years. A pair of groups…argue that the ban on home distilling, imposed in 1868, is unconstitutional because it's not within Congress's taxing power.”

The Associated Press features The Buckeye Institute’s monumental case challenging the federal prohibition on home distilling: U.S. Department of Justice v. McNutt (formerly McNutt v. U.S. Department of Justice), which the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear. “The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to consider whether Congress had the constitutional authority to impose a ban on distilling spirits in private homes more than 150 years ago. Plaintiffs challenging the prohibition on home distilling claim the 1868 law is an antiquated relic of Reconstruction-era politics.”