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.”

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.”

SCOTUSblog 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 has agreed to weigh in on the constitutionality of an 1868 federal law that imposes a tax on distilled spirits but also bans home distilleries – that is, the at-home production of spirits like bourbon and whiskey.”

Cleveland.com 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. “An Ohio man who wanted to distill whiskey at home may help decide whether millions of Americans can legally do the same. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a separate challenge to the 160-year-old federal ban on home distilling.”
 

The Washington Times 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 said Monday that it will hear a case challenging the 1866 law that bans home distilling, testing how much power Congress can claim under the Constitution to enact laws necessary for protecting its taxing power.”

NBC 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. “In a boost for those who want to make whiskey in their bathtubs or gin in their kitchens, the Supreme Court on Monday announced it will consider whether to strike down a long-standing federal ban on distilling spirits at home.”