@dpshow

Dan Patrick Show

@dpshow

"The Colts' first call will be/has been to Peyton Manning." — DP shares what his source has told him.

10:49 AM · Oct 19, 2026

·

313.1K

Views

https://x.com/dpshow/status/2112194430824272117

@R0bertEdward

Robert Contreras

@R0bertEdward

Katie Hobbs volunteer steals package off someone’s porch while knocking

1:49 AM · Oct 19, 2026

·

116.1K

https://x.com/R0bertEdward/status/2112058655868870701

Supreme Court agrees to consider federal ban on home distilleries

By Amy Howe Oct 19, 2026

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. The penalties for violating the law include fines of up to $10,000, five years in prison, or both. In a list of orders from the justices’ Oct. 16 conference, the court announced that it had granted review in Department of Justice v. McNutt.

The justices will likely hear oral argument in the case early next year, with a decision to follow by late June or early July.

The lawsuit was filed in 2023 by a nonprofit, the Hobby Distillers Association, and some of its individual members, who want to be able to operate home distilleries. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the ban on home distilleries violates two different provisions of the Constitution: the taxation clause, which gives Congress the power to “lay and collect Taxes … to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”; and the necessary and proper clause, which gives Congress the power to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” its listed powers.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose a tax on distilled spirits, the 5th Circuit determined, but it concluded that the ban on home distilleries exceeds that power. Not only does the ban not raise revenue, the court of appeals wrote, it prevents the production of spirits that could generate revenue. The court of appeals similarly rejected the government’s contention that the ban guards against tax evasion, explaining that “preventing activity lest it give rise to tax evasion places no limit whatsoever on Congress’s power under the taxation clause.”

The federal government came to the Supreme Court in August, asking the justices to weigh in. It contended that “[a] law is necessary and proper if it is ‘convenient’ or ‘useful’ for carrying an enumerated power into effect, and ‘plainly adapted’ to that legitimate end.” That is precisely what the ban on home distilleries does, the government argued. “Congress restricted home distilling because a distiller can more easily conceal a distilling operation or thwart necessary inspections—thereby evading the requisite tax—if the still is located in” a house or a structure attached to that house.

The challengers agreed that the court should grant review, although they urged the justices to leave the 5th Circuit’s ruling in place.The case, they said, “presents fundamental questions of the extent of federal power and the powers reserved to the states and the people.”

In a separate case, Ream v. Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reached the opposite conclusion from the 5th Circuit, holding that the ban on home distilleries is a necessary and proper exercise of Congress’s power to collect the federal tax on distilled spirits. John Ream, a retired aerospace engineer and the owner of a brewery who wants to be able to distill his own spirits, then came to the Supreme Courtin July, asking the justices to weigh in on the legality of the ban and on the broader question of Congress’ power to regulate “local, noncommercial conduct.”

The federal government agreed that the justices should take up the question at the center of Ream’s petition for review, but it urged the court to grant its own petition, in McNutt, instead. On Monday, the justices did just that.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/10/supreme-court-agrees-to-consider-federal-ban-on-home-distilleries/

Alcohol at the Supreme Court

By Kelsey Dallas

Aug 26, 2026.1/2

During the 2025-26 term, the justices pondered the Founding Fathers’ drinking habits as they considered a law barring habitual drug users from possessing guns. In the term ahead, they may return to the topic of alcohol in early America if they take up a case on a 19th-century law prohibiting at-home production of distilled spirits. Indeed, the court and alcohol have a long history: Here’s a brief overview of some of the court’s most notable alcohol-related rulings.

Prohibition cases

The country’s most famous drinking law, the 18th Amendment, took effect in January 1920. It barred “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within” the United States, as well as the importation and exportation of alcohol.

During the Prohibition period, which spanned from 1920 until 1933, the Supreme Court decided several cases related to the 18th Amendment. For example, in the National Prohibition Cases, the court considered seven lawsuits brought by states and brewing companies over the constitutionality of the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act, a law passed by Congress to enforce the amendment. The court held that Congress had the authority to pass the amendment and act, and rejected, among other things, challenges to Congress’ voting process, holding that the two-thirds vote needed to propose a constitutional amendment is satisfied as long as “two-thirds of the members present” support the proposal, rather than “two-thirds of the entire membership.” The 18th Amendment, wrote Justice Willis Van Devanter, “must be respected and given effect the same as other” amendments before it.

The court also addressed the methods that police officers used to enforce Prohibition, including the circumstances under which they could search cars or fields surrounding a private residence for alcohol without a warrant. The court’s rulings allowing for such warrantless searches continue to influence Fourth Amendment jurisprudence today, according to the Federal Judicial Center.

One more memorable case from this era was United States v. Sullivan, in which the Supreme Court held that “[g]ains from illicit traffic in liquor are subject to the income tax.” The justices unanimously agreed that the Fifth Amendment, which protects against forced self-incrimination, did not protect bootleggers from having to report their income from illegal alcohol sales. According to Politico, Sullivan “formed the basis for the government’s 1931 conviction of Al Capone, who led a Chicago-based Prohibition-era crime syndicate, of income tax evasion.”

Alcoholism and the Eighth Amendment

In 1933, Prohibition – and the associated legal battles – came to an end with the ratification of the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment and empowered states to regulate alcohol access. This development opened the door to new disputes over restrictions on alcohol sales and consumption, including bans on public intoxication.

One such ban in Texas led to 1968’s Powell v. Texas, in which the court considered whether it was constitutional to apply restrictions on public intoxication to those struggling with chronic alcoholism. Specifically, the justices weighed whether an alcoholic’s conviction for public intoxication violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments.”

In a complicated 5-4 ruling, the court held that such a conviction is constitutional. Justice Thurgood Marshall explained, in an opinion joined by three other justices, that public intoxication laws punish “being in public while drunk on a particular occasion,” not the status of being “a chronic alcoholic.”

Justice Hugo Black concurred, writing that a ruling preventing alcoholics from being convicted of public intoxication could open the door to a case that recognized an “‘irresistible impulse’ as a complete defense to any crime.”

Justice Byron White did not join Marshall’s opinion but agreed with the result that the court reached. He distinguished between punishing an alcoholic for being drunk, which he believed would be unlawful, and punishing them for “being drunk in a public place,” a situation which could be avoided by drinking at home.

Justice Abe Fortas wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by three other justices. He asserted that convicting a chronic alcoholic violates the Eighth Amendment, because an individual who “cannot resist the ‘constant excessive consumption of alcohol’ … does not appear in public by his own volition, but under a ‘compulsion’ which is part of his condition.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/08/alcohol-at-the-supreme-court/

DOJ Takes Emergency Action Against California in Fight to Stop State from Counting 20,000 Ballots Given to Non-Citizens

by Cristina Laila Oct. 19, 2026 2:00 pm112 Comments

Trending350+ reading now

Carbonatix Pre-Player Loader

Audio By Carbonatix

The Justice Department on Monday asked the Court for an emergency restraining order against California, requiring the state to immediately set aside the 20,000 ballots sent to non-citizens.

On Friday, the DOJ put California on notice and vowed to prosecute election officials who tabulate unlawful ballots.

“California on Notice: Federal agencies identified over 20,000 suspected noncitizens registered to vote in California who have already been mailed ballots,” First Assistant US Attorney Bill Essayli said on Friday.

“Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 611 and 2, officials who knowingly tabulate unlawful ballots risk aiding and abetting a federal offense. The Justice Department urges the County and the Secretary of State to temporarily segregate the flagged ballots pending citizenship verification or face legal consequences,” Bill Essayli said.

On Monday, the DOJ requested a restraining order to immediately separate the 20,000 ballots.

“Once illegally cast ballots are counted and commingled with lawful votes, the resulting harm may be impossible to remedy. The urgency is heightened because of the fundamental right to vote and to have one’s lawful vote counted without dilution,” the DOJ said in its request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), according to Fox News.

The emergency request for a TRO comes after the DOJ filed a federal lawsuit against California.

The federal lawsuit, filed in the Central District of California on October 15, requests an order preventing the tabulation of ballots belonging to individuals identified as likely noncitizens until their citizenship can be determined.

The Justice Department said Homeland Security Investigations and federal partners examined voter-registration records and conducted additional verification work to identify potential noncitizens.

On Friday, President Trump vowed to jail the lawbreakers in California if they count ballots for non-citizens: “They will all go to jail for a long period of time!!!”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/10/doj-takes-emergency-action-against-california-fight-stop/