FOX LiveNOW: Attorney Andrew Lieb Breaks Down New Mexico's Controversial Temporary Gun Ban

Andrew Lieb, a legal political analyst, discusses New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham's temporary ban on guns in public places with an emergency public health order. Lieb analyzes the order from both a political and constitutional perspective. He notes that while the order may be politically controversial, it attempts to fit within the "sensitive places" doctrine outlined in recent Supreme Court gun rights cases. The order will likely face legal challenges but could force further definition of what constitutes a "sensitive place." Overall, Lieb argues the order highlights the urgent need to address gun violence as a public health crisis through multi-pronged solutions.

Newsnation: Attorney Andrew Lieb Discusses New Mexico Gun Ban Emergency Order: Is it Constitutional?

Attorney Andrew Lieb discusses New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham's emergency order temporarily banning the carrying of guns in one county. Lieb analyzes whether the order violates the Second Amendment based on last year's Supreme Court decision in NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. He also addresses concerns raised by the local sheriff and argues the focus should be on stopping gun violence, not just debating constitutionality.

FOX LiveNOW: Attorney Andrew Lieb Discusses Florida Supreme Court Hearing Arguments on 15-Week Abortion Ban

Andrew Lieb joins LiveNOW from FOX to discuss the Florida Supreme Court hearing arguments on the state's 15-week abortion ban. Andrew analyzes the key issues at play in the case, including Florida's constitutional right to privacy and how the court's conservative makeup may impact the decision. He also compares this case to other state challenges and explains why the outcome in Florida may differ from other states based on their constitutions.

Employees Protected from Political Viewpoint Discrimination by Employers

Effective 9/6/2023, employees in NYS have greatly expanded rights to freedom of speech and conscience. Employees can now avoid their employer's views on politics or religion. This is huge. 

Specifically, A6604, amends Labor Law 201-d, which prohibits employment discrimination for political activities and recreational activities. Under the law, an employee can sue for equitable relief and damages. 

Key Amendments 

Now, the law defines:

"Political matters" as "matters relating to elections for political office, political parties, legislation, regulation and the decision to join or support any political party or political, civic, community, fraternal or labor organization."

"Religious matters" as "matters relating to religious affiliation and practice and the decision to join or support any religious organization or association." 

Under the amended law, employers cannot force employees to attend meetings or listen to / view communications primarily designed to express the employer’s opinions on Religious matters or Political matters.

There is also a notification requirement where employers must post a sign in workplaces informing employees of their rights as per this section.

Att'n Employers Wage Theft is NOW Larceny in NYS

Effective 9/6/2023, employers who steal wages are guilty of larceny under Penal Law 155. 

Per the bill's, A154A, justification, "[a]ccording to Cornell University's Worker Institute, wage theft in New York accounts for nearly $1 billion in lost wages each year and affects tens of thousands of workers - that's close to $20 million per week."

Yet, employees who experience wage theft should also remember that they can bring civil claims to get that stolen money back through the New York Labor Law and Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, together with liquidated damages and more. 

That means that if your employer takes your money or doesn't pay as frequently as required or doesn't pay overtime, you have rights to sue for your Wages and Hours.

FOX LiveNOW: Attorney Andrew Lieb Talking About Ex-Proud Boys Leader Sentencing

In this interview, legal analyst Andrew Lieb discusses the lengthy prison term given to former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio for his role in January 6th. While analyzing the judge's decision, Lieb notes it was below sentencing guidelines but still amounts to over two decades behind bars. He also pointed out the judge waived fines due to Tarrio's inability to pay. This deep dive into the high-profile sentencing raises issues about equal treatment under the law and how money can impact one's experience with the legal system.