In Attorney Andrew Lieb's discussion about the legality of In-N-Out's mask policy with Scripps News, Lieb emphasizes its potential issues regarding discrimination. Although it's legal in the majority of states as a general matter, the way the policy is worded could inadvertently lead to discrimination by not providing exemptions for religious reasons. He suggests that employees might have a chance to oppose this policy through unionization, concerted activity, or lawsuits related to religious accommodations and disability accommodations. 

Before pursuing a medical exemption, Lieb advises employees to consult a discrimination lawyer to better understand what counts as a statutorily recognized disability that would qualify for such an exemption. He also addresses the problematic nature of the restaurant chain's requirement for only company-provided masks, which could fail to accommodate those who might need different kinds of masks due to their religion or medical condition. He specifically points out that "Many Muslim women might need to cover their face. So the way they articulate it is really problematic and potentially discriminatory."

Attorney Andrew Lieb recently shared key insights on Scripps News on former President Trump's defense strategy following his arraignment. Lieb's analysis sheds light on important arguments and potential challenges that may arise in the case. Let's explore the crucial points discussed during the interview.

1. Selective Prosecution and Relevancy:

Lieb notes that Trump's references to other investigations, such as those involving Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, may hold political weight but lack the relevancy required to be heard in a courtroom. Selective prosecution may be raised as a defense, but its success remains unlikely.

2. Fourth Amendment and Unreasonable Search and Seizures:

Trump's defense may challenge the legality of the FBI raid on his Mar-a-Lago home, arguing violations of the Fourth Amendment. However, Lieb suggests the experienced prosecution team is unlikely to have made critical mistakes in obtaining the subpoena.

3. Personal vs. Official Records:

Trump's claim to distinguish personal and official records presents an intriguing argument because of the Clinton Sock Drawer Case. However, legal precedent from the Court of Appeals limits a president's authority in determining record categorization under the Presidential Records Act. This argument may face challenges and potential appeals.

4. Motions, Appeals, and Bond Conditions:

Lieb outlines three expected motions: discovery of evidence, suppression based on Fourth Amendment violations, and dismissal based on record categorization as personal. Appeals are likely to complicate the case further. Violating bond conditions, including communicating with witnesses, may result in consequences for Trump's bond.