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. They argue that Congress overstepped its taxation powers when it enacted the home distilling ban as part of a tax reform measure designed to curb fraud by commercial distillers.

Government attorneys counter that Congress properly restricted where spirits can be distilled to prevent producers from evading federal excise taxes. They warn that lifting the ban would violate Supreme Court precedent and erode congressional powers.

Federal law makes home distilling a crime punishable by a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Separate challenges to the law divided two federal circuit courts, which issued conflicting decisions in April, only 11 days apart.

A three-judge panel from the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the federal ban in a case brought by John Ream, a brewpub owner from Newark, Ohio, who wants to distill whisky at home for his personal consumption.

A Fifth Circuit panel ruled in favor of different plaintiffs — members of the Texas-based Hobby Distillers Association — and concluded that statutory prohibitions on in-home distilling are outside the scope of Congress' taxing power under the Constitution.

The Supreme Court agreed to review the Fifth Circuit decision, which was the Justice Department's preference. Plaintiffs' attorney Robert Alt said they are "thrilled" that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

"Our country's founders would be rolling over in their graves to learn that a pastime in which even George Washington partook, which is as American as apple pie and certainly a lot older, has quite absurdly been turned into a federal crime," Alt said in a statement.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs in both cases argue that Congress could ban a broad array of activities inside private homes — including cooking, gardening and remote work — under the government's interpretation of the 19th century law.

"The importance of this case and the questions it presents could hardly be overstated," the plaintiffs' lawyers wrote. "It presents fundamental questions of the extent of federal power and the powers reserved to the states and the people."

Justice Department attorneys said the government's regulation and taxation on the production of distilled spirits is as old as Congress itself. They noted that Congress outlawed home distilling to prevent those producers from evading taxes or government inspections.

"And because the location restrictions were enacted only after lengthy experience with tax evasion, upholding those restrictions would not open the door to hypothetical laws restricting other conduct lacking that history," they wrote. The government says Ream asked the Supreme Court to resolve an "additional question" of whether location restrictions on home distilling exceed the scope of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. But the government urged the high court to avoid that question, saying it wasn't part of Ream's case or the government's current arguments in either case.

The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear arguments in a watchdog's lawsuit seeking public records about billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency.

The high court is intervening for a second time in Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington's case, which seeks access to DOGE records from its operations in the early days of President Donald Trump's second term. The Trump administration asked the court to hear the case.

Last year, the high court reined in a district court's order for the government to produce DOGE-related records to CREW. The high court's conservative majority concluded in June 2025 that U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled too broadly in ordering documents to be turned over to the group.

CREW claims DOGE is a federal agency and therefore is subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

The Trump administration argues that DOGE is exempt from FOIA's requirements as a presidential advisory body.

Cooper ruled in CREW's favor and ordered expedited processing of the group's records request. An appeals court panel also sided with CREW.

The Trump administration claims the panel ignored the Supreme Court's direction to consider separation-of-powers concerns and intruded on the "autonomy and confidentiality" of presidential advisers.

"Subjecting advisory bodies to intrusive discovery triggers the very concerns that Congress sought to avoid by excluding presidential advisory bodies from FOIA's reach," Justice Department attorneys wrote.

The administration also says the appeals court impermissibly authorized the plaintiffs to take a sworn deposition of DOGE acting administrator Amy Gleason.

CREW says the appeals court fully complied with the Supreme Court's previous order. The group also asserts that the public has a right to know how DOGE helped the administration carry out a sweeping overhaul of government operations in 2025.

"Undisputed facts in the public record — including the President's statements — confirmed that (DOGE) was wielding enormous independent authority across the federal government," its attorneys wrote.

In a statement Tuesday, CREW attorney Nikhel Sus said the lower courts have uniformly ruled that it is entitled to records that could help the court determine whether DOGE wields the type of authority that would make it subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

"We will continue to pursue transparency for the American people, who deserve to know the details of the Trump Administration's efforts to unilaterally remake the federal government," Sus said in the statement.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday let President Donald Trump's administration continue swiftly deporting people to countries other than their own for now, while the justices consider whether the policy is legal.

The apparent 6-3 order temporarily lifts lower court requirements for migrants to get a chance to object before being sent to countries to which they have no ties.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in December.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have kept the lower court order in place.

The Trump administration said last week the lower court order forced the cancellation of a deportation flight carrying about 70 people bound for three countries.

The conservative majority has sided with the administration before on the core Trump administration policy, allowing deportation flights to temporarily continue last year.

The court said it will consider several questions: whether the policy is lawful, whether lower courts had the authority to consider the case and issue a sweeping block, as well as other questions the government deems appropriate.

The order "has now allowed the administration to resume sending people to third countries where they may face persecution, torture, imprisonment, or other grave danger," said Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance and one of the lawyers representing immigrants in the case.

"But today's order does not decide that the government's policy is lawful," she said in a statement. "The Court will hear that question on an expedited schedule."

Under a series of often-secret agreements, the Trump administration has deported some 25,000 people to more than two dozen countries, from Liberia to Guyana. The vast majority have been sent to Mexico.

Trump's Republican administration has said that it sends people with final deportation orders to third countries when they can't be returned to their homelands or their native countries won't accept them, including those who have criminal convictions. Those governments provide assurances that people won't be persecuted or tortured, federal attorneys said.

Attorney General Todd Blanche called the policy "an entirely lawful and critical tool for immigration enforcement" in a social media post.

Some migrants, though, have found themselves imprisoned in countries they'd never heard of before their arrivals. Others also face serious safety risks and are left with little choice except to return to the home countries they were fleeing. Many have no criminal convictions and have been found to be at risk of torture or persecution, attorneys for the immigrants said.

The case comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by the Trump administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally.

A man who sprayed vinegar at Democratic U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar at a town hall meeting in Minneapolis pleaded guilty to assault Thursday in federal court after reaching a deal with prosecutors.

Anthony Kazmierczak, 55, is awaiting sentencing.

Kazmierczak, dressed in bright orange jail clothing, gave only a fragmentary explanation Thursday of the Jan. 27 assault, which came as the city was already on edge after the fatal shootings of two people by federal agents during a White House crackdown that brought thousands of immigration officers to Minnesota.

After being asked what he remembered of the assault, he told U.S. District Judge Joan N. Ericksen: "It's fuzzy."

Kazmierczak, who was in the audience during Omar's January town hall, leaped up when the representative called for the ouster of then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. He sprayed liquid from a syringe as court documents say he shouted that Noem would not resign and that Omar was "splitting Minnesota apart."

Security officers tackled Kazmierczak, who told them the liquid was vinegar.

"I didn't want anybody to think she was in danger," he said Thursday.

Omar, who was not injured, continued with the town hall after the arrest.

Authorities later determined he'd sprayed her with a mixture of water and apple cider vinegar. He was charged with assaulting a U.S. officer.

Court documents say Kazmierczak, a critic of Omar who has made online posts supportive of President Donald Trump, told a close associate several years ago that "somebody should kill" her.

Omar, a refugee from Somalia, has long been a target of Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric. After she was elected seven years ago, Trump said she should "go back" to her home country. He has described her as "garbage" and said she should be investigated.

Trump has also accused Omar of staging the attack, telling ABC News, "She probably had herself sprayed, knowing her."

On Thursday, Kazmierczak told Erickson that he was being treated for Parkinson's disease, and that he'd been diagnosed with ADHD or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and a form of post-traumatic stress.

After his arrest, his then-attorney said that he did not have access to the medications he needed for Parkinson's and other serious conditions.

Minnesota court records show that Kazmierczak, who was convicted of felony auto theft in 1989, has been arrested multiple times for driving under the influence and has had numerous traffic citations. There are also indications he has had significant financial problems, including two bankruptcy filings.

In social media posts, Kazmierczak had criticized former President Joe Biden and referred to Democrats as "angry and liars." Trump wants the U.S. to be "stronger and more prosperous," he wrote.

Threats against members of Congress have increased in recent years, peaking in 2021 following the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters before dipping slightly, only to climb again, according to the most recent figures from the U.S. Capitol Police.