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."

In this interview with FOX liveNOW, Attorney Andrew Lieb unpacks the emerging legal crisis facing 16 Michigan residents who have been indicted for allegedly forging documents tied to the 2020 election as fake electors. While the First Amendment guarantees their right to advocate for Donald Trump's election victory, it does not permit fraudulent actions, such as posing as electors when they clearly were not.

Lieb also delves into the curious case of Trump's unique approach to legal challenges. The former president's strategy of pre-empting legal indictments via social media puzzles many from a legal standpoint, yet it effectively rallies his supporters in the political context.

Analysing Trump's current predicament, Lieb suggests that an indictment over his involvement in the January 6 events appears increasingly probable, given the current trajectory of the investigations.

Key Points:

• Serious charges loom over 16 Michigan residents for allegedly falsifying and filing elector documents.
• Trump's preemptive social media tactics might score political points but are legally confounding.
• A looming indictment for Trump appears likely considering the "target" letter and the progression of investigations so far.

In Lieb's words, "It's a legally bewildering scenario. You can just picture his attorneys at their wit's end, wondering why he's openly taunting prosecutors. From a legal perspective, this is an unorthodox, almost reckless approach."

If the Screen Actors Guild goes on strike, we're standing at the precipice of a seismic shift in the entertainment industry. The game is changing, and not just incrementally. We're talking about tectonic movement here. Actors are understandably concerned about residuals for streaming services, but there's an even bigger elephant in the room - the advent of artificial intelligence. You see, what we've got here is a scenario where an actor's name, likeness, even their idiosyncratic quirks can be replicated, regenerated through AI.  Imagine, for a moment, that you've dedicated your entire life to your craft - to bringing characters to life on screen. Then one day, you find yourself in a position where you're no longer needed. Why? Because a machine, an algorithm, can emulate you in such a way that you're effectively replaceable. This is the stark reality our actors are facing, and it's a prospect that doesn't sit comfortably. So, yes, we're on the brink of monumental change. How we navigate this new terrain will dictate the future of the industry. It's not just about the strike - it's about the very essence of what it means to be an actor in the 21st century.  To hear more on this, check out Attorney Andrew Lieb's full interview on FOX 5 NY.

NYS law is that the refusal to rent or lease based on "lawful source of income" constitutes actionable discrimination under Executive Law 296(5)(a)(1). 

Now, the Hon. Mark  G. Masler of the State Supreme Court, County of Tompkins, in James v. Commons West, LLC, et al., has found this anti-discrimination law to be unconstitutional because it compels landlords to have their business records and property inspected incident to being compelled to participate in Section 8, all in violation of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution and Article I, Section 12 of the NYS Constitution. 

This case is surely going to be appealed - do you think mandatory participation in Section 8 constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure? 

In a recent interview with Scripps News, Attorney Andrew Lieb weighed in on a significant legal case ruling which states that race can no longer be a factor in university admissions. Lieb highlighted the shift in the precedent, stating, "we were never allowed to have race be a quota system... And what we've learned now is under the equal protection clause that's in the Constitution, that would be discriminatory, you can't do that you can't make race a factor." This new interpretation of the equal protection clause is poised to transform the admission procedures in both public and private institutions across the United States. 

Lieb also discussed the dissenting opinion of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who accused the majority of "let them eat cake" obliviousness. He pointed out the complexities of achieving a race-blind admission system, asking "how do you write an essay and make it race blind?" Furthermore, Lieb brought up the intriguing perspective by renowned author Malcolm Gladwell who posits that removing race as a factor might actually benefit the individuals who otherwise would not be admitted into certain institutions. 

The interview concluded with Lieb noting the societal pendulum swing on matters of race, suggesting that there may be a shift in attitudes towards admissions again in the future. He commented, "Grutter said maybe in 25 years, we'd be in a different climate. So I'll tell you today, maybe in 25 years, we'll be in yet another different climate." This notion acknowledges the fluidity and complexities of societal norms and their influence on the interpretation of the law.

Andrew Lieb, a Long Island attorney and legal analyst at Lieb at Law PC, recently spoke with CBS Radio regarding two important Supreme Court rulings. 

First, Lieb discussed the ruling on student debt forgiveness where the court disagreed with President Biden's plan for debt forgiveness. Lieb summarized the situation: "We're talking about this HEROES Act and the Biden administration has relied on this act...And the question becomes does the HEROES Act give the Biden administration the power they want?" The Supreme Court's decision effectively denies the administration's ability to forgive debt based on this Act.

In the second case, Lieb shed light on LGBT discrimination by explaining that it was a freedom of speech case rather than a discrimination case, despite the headlines stating otherwise. The case involved a Christian graphic artist refusing to make specific websites about same-sex couples rather than refusing to work for LGBT people overall. Lieb clarified that the ruling does not permit the denial of services based on sexual orientation. Rather, it emphasizes that "certain creative people speak through their creativity...while you have to serve anyone...all she said is that when she writes the cake, she's not going to make a product with her speech that goes against what she wants to do." This distinction emphasizes that the court's ruling protects creative expression and not discriminatory practices.

Attorney Andrew Lieb joins Scripps News to provide a comprehensive analysis on the legal implications of a recently surfaced audio tape involving former President Trump. The tape suggests potential violations of federal law, as it indicates the showing of a classified document to an individual without proper clearance. Lieb offers insights into the significance of the recording, potential defense strategies, and the challenges associated with securing convictions in high-profile cases. 

Key quotes from Attorney Andrew Lieb:

•  "The thing is, we read about in the indictment itself recordings and it wasn't as bad as even this recording from Bedminster. And I would bet everything I own that Jack Smith has a lot more than just this recording."
• "Trump not only pays to get the evidence taken against him, then he goes on truth social and gives us a play by play commentary when it comes out. It couldn't get better for a prosecutor than this."
• "The laws you just played the recording dealt, but what they're going to do is they're going to say, 'But you don't believe that we don't need to believe that he wouldn't do that.'"
• "The big hurdle is he's a very popular fella, and can you get enough jurors to want to convict them? But that's not saying does Jack Smith have the law and the facts Jack Smith has the law on the facts, though."
• "At the end of the day, it's really hard to get around a recording of yourself that you paid for admitting that something was still secret top secret, and you were showing it to someone else. That's a problem."
• "If I was Trump's lawyers today, I would be taking Valium after Valium and just say, 'Please turn off your social media man.' He's killing them."
• 
  

Two Approaches to Decision-Making: Lieb noted that the liberal justices likely based their decision on a broader consideration of immigration policy as a whole. Conversely, the conservative justices focused on history and tradition, drawing parallels to previous cases like Dobbs v. Jackson that overturned Roe v. Wade. This dichotomy highlighted how different groups of people can arrive at the same conclusion through distinct approaches.

Standing and State Involvement: Lieb explained that the ruling determined that Texas and Louisiana lacked standing on the issue at hand. This ruling does not indicate support for President Biden's policy or establish the executive branch's ultimate authority. Instead, it signifies that these particular states cannot present their arguments in this specific case.

Implications on a Personal Level: Lieb highlighted that not everyone can realistically be subject to deportation due to limited governmental resources and prioritization. The ruling allows the Biden administration greater flexibility in implementing its immigration policies.

Constitutional Considerations: Lieb underscored the importance of historical perspectives and past interpretations in cases brought before the conservative-leaning Supreme Court. He emphasized that a deeper understanding of history is crucial when presenting a case to this particular Court.

Tightened Rules for State Challenges: The ruling against the states by SCOTUS has resulted in tightened rules concerning when states may challenge federal policies they disagree with. This development clarifies the parameters for state involvement in legal challenges to federal decisions.