The 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.

▲

semiquaver 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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)

▲

HWR_14 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

How does the supreme court revisit precedents if the circuit court doesn't readdress the issue?

▲

pdonis 8 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The party that wants the precedent reversed loses in the lower court (because the lower court is bound by current Supreme Court precedent) and appeals to the Supreme Court. The canonical historical example is Brown v. Board of Education, which was appealed to the Supreme Court explicitly to ask them to reverse Plessy v. Ferguson, which lower courts had relied on as precedent.

▲

PaulDavisThe1st 36 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Somebody has to bring a new case that presents a novel legal theory/presentation that isn't clearly addressed by the ruling that forms the precedent.

	▲	djoldman 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Additionally, one can argue that the state of the world has changed enough that assumptions made by the USC at the time of precedence require reversal.

▲

wahern 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In particular, Necessary and Proper as it relates to the taxing power, which the challenged statute relied upon, having been passed decades before the scope of Commerce Clause powers began their expansion, let alone Wickard v. Filburn.

▲

gowld an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> Circuit courts may not overrule Supreme Court precedent.

That's a Supreme Court opinion that only applies if the new case reaches their docket and gets reaffirmed.

▲

bell-cot an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

There's a lot of context (behind Wickard v Filburn) which would obviously not apply to anyone distilling for personal consumption:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn