alt Hacker NewsThe controlling case is Wickard v Filburn (1942).
A farmer was told he could only grow X acres of feed on his own land; feed that he had no intention of selling and was being fed entirely to his own livestock on the same land.
This seems to overturn that in part, but until Wickard is overturned, and the interstate commerce clause reigned in, there will be weird side effects of it like this.
Replies
bell-cot • yesterday at 7:07 PM
There's a lot of context (behind Wickard v Filburn) which would obviously not apply to anyone distilling for personal consumption:
Circuit courts may not overrule Supreme Court precedent. Accordingly, this decision purports to rest on the “Necessary and Proper” clause, avoiding Wickard (decided on commerce clause grounds)