FOX 5 NY: Attorney Andrew Lieb Discusses Hollywood Actors Strike

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.

Is the NYS Source of Income (Section 8) Anti-Discrimination Law Unconstitutional? NYS Supreme Court Seems to Think so

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? 

Scripps News: Legal Analyst Andrew Lieb Commenting on Supreme Court Rulings on Rejection of Affirmative Action & Religious Freedom

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.

CBS Radio: Legal Analyst Andrew Lieb Talks About The Supreme Court Blocking Biden's Student Loan Plan + Freedom of Speech Discrimination Ruling

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.

Court TV: Supreme Court's Ruling on Race-Conscious Admissions: Analysis with Andrew Lieb

Supreme Court bans affirmative action in college admissions. Court TV brought on Attorney Andrew Lieb to discuss this controversial decision that has ignited fierce debates among legal scholars, university administrators, and students alike.

Role of Race in Admissions:

Lieb highlighted Justice Roberts' perspective that race can continue to play a role in university admissions, as long as it contributes to an individual's character. This view serves as a counterpoint to those who believe the ruling is a complete withdrawal of rights.

Overlooking Other Forms of Preferential Treatment:

The interview also focused on the court's omission of other types of preferential treatment in admissions, such as donations and legacies. Lieb clarified that the case was brought under the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI, which do not pertain to these other factors on their face, suggesting the need for legislative changes.

Maintaining Diversity Post Ruling:

Lieb provided some forward-looking advice to universities. To meet the court's new criteria and maintain diversity, universities could provide a definite end date for their programs and demonstrate how a diverse student body enhances the exchange of ideas. 

Diverse Perspectives on the Ruling:

The panelists on Court TV offered varied views on the ruling. While some perceived it as less severe than anticipated, others criticized the court for appearing detached from the realities of racial disparities in education and overturning established precedents.