> Has anyone taken these laws to the Supreme Court?No, but that's because we live in a legal regime where the government assumes the power to punish people with jail time even when no actual harm is caused, based on a government official's judgment of "possible harm". But the fact that we live in such a regime does not make it right.
In a sane legal regime, what would happen if you were driving drunk, but had not caused any actual harm, and a cop saw you and stopped you, would be: cop determines that you are drunk (breathalyzer, let's say); cop makes sure your car is safely parked off the road, locks it, and takes the key; cop says "sir, I really think you should let me drive you home, since you're too drunk to drive safely; you can get a family member or friend to bring you back to get your car tomorrow when you're sober". Then, either the cop drives you home and gives your car keys to whoever is there; or, if you resist, the cop puts you in the back of his car and drives you to the police station instead, and calls a family member or friend to come take you home, and gives your car keys to them.
In other words, the cop has a perfect right, when he sees you're obviously impaired, to stop you from driving. Indeed, anyone would; if you were at a friend's house and you were clearly too drunk to drive home, the friend would have a perfect right to hide your car keys and either drive you home himself, or have you crash in his spare bedroom or on the couch. But the government does not have the right to throw you in jail if all you did was drive drunk, and caused no actual harm. It only has the right to punish you if you caused actual harm.