Gwendolyn Berry pled guilty to stealing funds from her employer. At sentencing, she was ordered to pay restitution of more than $2 million. To enforce this judgment, the government garnished 50 percent of two investment retirement accounts (IRAs) belonging to Gwendolyn’s husband, Michael. A federal appeals court upheld this garnishment, holding that in Texas, where the Berrys were residents, a spouse has one-half interest in the other spouse’s solely managed community property, including IRAs. Therefore, half of Michael’s IRA was part of Gwendolyn’s garnishable property. Attempting to reduce the amount of the court order, the Berrys looked to a federal law that limits restitution-related garnishments to 25 percent of “weekly earnings.” If Michael liquidated his IRA, they argued, that would be the same as getting

“earnings” and thus the 25-percent law applied to this case.

Should an appellate court accept this argument?