Legal News for Weds 5/14 - Section 199A Tax Breaks for Rich, Harvard Federal Funding Fight, New Sentence for Menendez Bros and WI Judge Indicted

Minimum Competence

This Day in Legal History: Arrival of Constitutional Delegates

On May 14, 1787, delegates from several states began arriving in Philadelphia for what would become the Constitutional Convention, a pivotal moment in American legal history. Originally convened to revise the Articles of Confederation, the gathering quickly evolved into a full-scale effort to draft a new framework of government. Only a handful of delegates were present on the 14th, but their arrival marked the start of weeks of foundational debate and compromise.

The Convention was held at the Pennsylvania State House, now known as Independence Hall, a site already steeped in revolutionary significance. Delegates represented a range of political and economic interests, and their regional differences would shape much of the debate to come. The eventual goal was to create a system that balanced federal and state authority while preventing tyranny through a series of checks and balances.

While May 14 was the scheduled opening, a quorum was not achieved until May 25, delaying formal proceedings. Nonetheless, early arrivals used the time to strategize and lay the groundwork for proposals. Among them was James Madison, whose extensive preparation and later contributions earned him the title "Father of the Constitution."

The Convention would ultimately produce the United States Constitution, replacing the Articles of Confederation and establishing the three branches of government. This foundational legal document remains the supreme law of the land, with its principles guiding American governance to this day.

In a new analysis, the Tax Law Center critiques the House Ways and Means Committee’s proposal to expand the section 199A pass-through business income deduction, calling it a costly move that deepens existing inequities in the tax code. Originally enacted under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, section 199A allows qualifying owners of pass-through businesses to deduct up to 20% of their income. This benefit is already skewed heavily toward the top 1% of earners and industries such as law and lobbying. The provision, which expires after 2025 under current law, has not shown evidence of boosting economic activity and has instead encouraged tax avoidance strategies.

The new proposal would raise the deduction rate from 20% to 23% and remove the income cap that currently limits eligibility for higher earners in certain industries. This change would particularly benefit high-income professionals whose pass-through income makes up a large share of their earnings. For example, under the proposed rules, a law firm partner earning $247,300 could receive a deduction of nearly $20,000—whereas they would get nothing under current 2025 law.

The revised rules would also alter how phase-outs are calculated, increasing the value of the deduction for top earners while reducing it for some taxpayers whose income includes a mix of wages and pass-through business earnings. The analysis warns that these changes may incentivize further reclassification of income to exploit the deduction. Additionally, the proposal extends the favorable treatment to interest income received through Business Development Companies (BDCs), providing a new tax break for certain investment structures favored by private funds.

Ways and Means proposes making costly 199A “pass-through” deduction more generous and valuable to high-income earners

Harvard University has broadened its lawsuit against the federal government, escalating a legal dispute over the termination of billions in federal funding. The amended complaint, filed in federal court in Boston, follows a new wave of agency letters formally cutting off $450 million in grants and reaffirming the earlier freeze of over $2.2 billion. The government attributes the funding halt to Harvard's alleged failure to address antisemitic incidents on campus.

Harvard argues that the funding freeze is an unconstitutional retaliation for its refusal to cede academic control to federal authorities. The university maintains that these actions violate its First Amendment rights, particularly in relation to academic freedom and decision-making in areas like faculty hiring and student admissions. The complaint asserts that the administration is effectively punishing Harvard for not aligning with its political and ideological expectations.

The dispute has wide-ranging implications, threatening numerous research initiatives and sectors dependent on Harvard’s federal support. Agencies including the NIH, USDA, DOE, DOD, and HUD have all issued letters stating the university's recent conduct undermines federal priorities, leaving no room for corrective action.

Harvard President Alan Garber has condemned the funding cuts as political overreach, warning they jeopardize core institutional freedoms. Meanwhile, a federal task force countered with a public rebuke of Harvard’s leadership, accusing it of fostering discrimination and failing to protect Jewish students.

A hearing in the case is scheduled for July 21.

Harvard Expands Lawsuit Against US as Funding Feud Deepens (1)

A Los Angeles judge resentenced Erik and Lyle Menendez to 50 years to life in prison with the possibility of parole, replacing their original sentence of life without parole for the 1989 murder of their parents. The decision followed emotional testimony from family members, former prison officials, and a rehabilitated inmate who credited the brothers with his transformation. Judge Michael Jesic noted that while the crime was shocking, the brothers' prison records and support from correctional staff and victims’ relatives were extraordinary, calling the case a “unicorn.”

The Menendez brothers are now immediately eligible for parole, with a hearing scheduled for June 13. Their attorney, Mark Geragos, said the new sentence reflects evolving views on incarceration and rehabilitation. During the hearing, both brothers expressed remorse and outlined plans for continued advocacy if released—Lyle focusing on prison rehabilitation through green spaces, and Erik on hospice programs for elderly inmates.

The resentencing aligns with the position of former L.A. District Attorney George Gascón, who had supported a review of their case based on claims of childhood sexual abuse and their youth at the time of the crime. However, current DA Nathan Hochman opposed the change, questioning the brothers' remorse and pointing to a moderate risk assessment in related clemency proceedings.

Prosecutors also scrutinized the brothers’ past trial conduct, alleging they encouraged perjury and had not been truthful about the events surrounding the murder. Despite this, their family members testified they felt safe around Erik and Lyle both before and after the killings and urged an end to the decades-long public scrutiny.

Menendez Brothers Given Chance of Parole With New Sentence (3)

Wisconsin Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of obstructing proceedings and concealing a person from arrest. The charges stem from an April 18 incident in which Dugan allegedly helped an undocumented immigrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, avoid immigration agents by allowing him to leave through a restricted jury door near her courtroom. The agents, who lacked a judicial warrant, were waiting to detain him outside the courthouse.

Dugan was arrested on April 25 and has since been temporarily suspended from her judicial duties by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Her legal team maintains that she is innocent and expects to be exonerated during court proceedings. The case raises questions about the limits of judicial discretion when intersecting with federal immigration enforcement.

Wisconsin judge indicted on obstructing immigration case | Reuters

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe