Is That Even Legal‪?‬ Attorney Robert Sewell

Bob is fascinated by the balance between the need for regulation and the vast growth of the administrative state. We are also fascinated by just how much the political winds impact the law...even though we like to believe it is solid and hard to change.  Look no further than the 88-year-old National Labor Relations Act, and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) which it created. It is now under fire at the Supreme Court.

A product of the New Deal, the NLRB has yet to face such a challenge in the modern era, but major companies like SpaceX, Starbucks, and Trader Joe's have marshaled a constitutional challenge to the legitimacy of its composition and enforcement activities, hoping to eventually find a sympathetic ear before the U.S. Supreme Court, currently controlled by a conservative majority. 
These arguments range from challenges to the board's impartiality to issues concerning the separation of powers doctrine, given the inability to remove board members except “for cause,” to violations of due process and deprivation of the right to trial by jury under the Fifth and Seventh Amendments, respectively. And given the Biden NLRB's aggressive policy and enforcement prerogatives, these arguments have begun to become commonplace defenses against its actions.
John Balitis knows the NLRB. He knows what it is like to "walk in" and face an administrative investigation/prosecution/enforcement/judicial and appellate body...ALL IN ONE!

His prediction? Somehow the board...which impacts virtually every workplace...is likely going to be a different animal once the Supreme Court rules.  How different?  What does it mean for employers?  Employees?

Take a listen now!

THE SUPREME COURT WILL SOON DECIDE: If a social media censures you for your viewpoint - does that violate the First Amendment? If laws tell Social Media companies they must publish your viewpoint...is the company's First Amendment rights violated?

We all say we want free speech. But if you own a private company can the government tell you what it can and cannot post?  Are social media companies the public square...common carriers...or...private companies that can choose their own content?

That is the question before the Supreme Court. In this episode, Bob talks with Supreme Court scholar Eugene Volokh:

Facts of the case


The State of Texas enacted HB 20 to regulate large social media platforms, such as Facebook, X (formerly known as Twitter), and YouTube. The law purports to prohibit large social media platforms from censoring speech based on the viewpoint of the speaker.
NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association filed a lawsuit against the Attorney General of Texas, challenging two provisions of the law as unconstitutional: (1) Section 7, which prohibits viewpoint-based censorship of users’ posts, except for content that incites criminal activity or is unlawful. (2) Section 2, which requires platforms to disclose how they moderate and promote content, publish an "acceptable use policy," and maintain a complaint-and-appeal system for their users.
The district court issued a preliminary injunction, holding that Section 7 and Section 2 are facially unconstitutional. The court argued that social media platforms have some level of editorial discretion protected by the First Amendment, and HB 20 interferes with that discretion. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, rejecting the idea that large corporations have a “freewheeling” First Amendment right to censor what people say. It reasoned that HB 20 does not regulate the platforms’ speech but protects other people’s speech and regulates the platforms’ conduct.

Question:

Do Texas HB 20’s provisions prohibiting social media platforms from censoring users’ content and imposing stringent disclosure requirements violate the First Amendment?

Our guest:

Eugene Volokh teaches First Amendment law and a First Amendment amicus brief clinic at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.

Before coming to UCLA, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (6th ed. 2016), and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed. 2013), as well as over 90 law review articles. He is a member of The American Law Institute, a member of the American Heritage Dictionary Usage Panel, and the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. His law review articles have been cited by opinions in eight Supreme Court cases and several hundred court opinions in total, as well as several thousand scholarly articles.

In Arizona, the 'Gilbert Goons'  have grabbed headlines - sending fear and concern throughout a traditional suburban community - a case where teens are charged with violently attacking others.

When things like this occur, one of the overlooked aspects of the legal system is this: THE LIABILITY OF THE PARENTS.

The assets of the parents of the alleged assailants are often highly at risk.  Is That Even Legal?

Meet Asset Protection guru Ike Devji. His clients have seven billion dollars under his guiding hand.  In his interview with the incredible Bob Sewell,  Here are some highlights:

From the moment you become a parent, your risk profile changes, and it is never too soon to consider asset protection.

Often, the children of affluent parents have access to choices and property that can elevate risk for their parents.

Parent's should always we aware of their insurance coverages, their business interests and risks and explore legal advice on how to protect their assets.

Your child may never cause an accident, join a group of "goons," or otherwise incur large financial risk for your household, but those who are prepared, preserve their wealth, says Ike.

The rules appear uneven. The outcomes seem almost random. But what happens when a doctor, a dentist, a nurse, etc., makes a mistake...or is negligent? Can they practice or do they go to jail?  In this episode, you are going to hear some wild stories...

If you are a professional...what do you do? If you are a consumer, how do you protect yourself?

Bob explores the razor-thin line between human error and negligence in the healthcare industry with professional license lawyer and industry expert David Williams. We take you on a journey through the complexities of healthcare licensing, where the fate of professionals hinges on the decisions of regulatory bodies.

The contrast between an Arizona dentist who maintained his practice despite a history of complaints, and a Tennessee nurse facing severe penalties for a single mistake sets the table for our conversation.

We tackle the arduous process healthcare workers endure to obtain and retain their licenses, and the psychological warfare they face under the scrutinizing eyes of licensing boards. Our guests shed light on the self-corrective mechanisms within the industry, revealing the delicate balance between upholding patient safety and supporting the well-being of medical practitioners.

What do you do if you are a practitioner and you have a complaint? Make a mistake?  How can consumers protect themselves, report mistakes?


Listen now.

No matter what side of the political spectrum you fall. And whether you think the former president should be on the 2024 ballot or not. Tomorrow's Supreme Court consideration of the Insurrection Clause is historic. We could not let it happen without taking a look.

In this interview, Bob interviews constitutional expert Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University. What follows is an engaging exploration into the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause and its potential repercussions for Donald Trump's political future. As the Supreme Court deliberates, we dissect the amendment's historical roots, established to curtail post-Civil War insurrectionists, and scrutinize its relevance in the wake of the January 6th Capitol siege. The conversation traverses the terrain of past rebellions and posits how the Capitol breach stands in comparison, offering an intricate understanding of the constitutional definitions at play.  We take no side in this fight and the professor's views are his own.

Navigating the murky waters of what constitutes presidential support for an insurrection, we scrutinize Trump's actions on the fateful day, incljuding the implications of his response—or lack thereof—to the Capitol breach. The episode peels back the layers of constitutional ambiguity, addressing the complexities of determining engagement in insurrection, and how these gray areas resonate with our democracy's fundamental themes. Through Somin's expert (and, admittedly partisan) lens, we shine a light on the bearing this case could have, considering the unique dynamics of a former president and current political figurehead's eligibility for office.

Focusing on the electoral eligibility mechanisms, the dialogue turns to the influential role of Secretaries of State and the judiciary's part in protecting our electoral sanctity. Through historical references like the challenge to Ted Cruz's eligibility, we emphasize the importance of checks and balances within our legal system. The episode wraps with insights into the potential for the highest court to interpret both legal and factual findings, particularly in defining insurrection—and what it means to engage in it. For those drawn to the interplay of law and democracy, this episode is an invitation to witness a deep-dive into one of the most pressing legal debates of our time.

Covenant marriage recently made headlines when the new Speaker of the House took his position in Washington, D.C. He has one, and so the media tried to figure out just what it was.

They painted covenant marriage as quirky and as weird as they could make it, but the law’s roots are based in a good intention...try to stem the tide of divorces across the land. 

"No-Fault" divorce laws are blamed by some for the dwindling permanence of what once was one of our most cherished relationships...the institution of marriage. 

So, "covenant marriages," were invented in some states as a legal way to try to “help” couples stay together, with the state getting involved. 

If you made marriage covenants, are you in a covenant marriage?  Listen in to find out.

As with most laws Bob examines, there are lots of unintended consequences when the government tries to solve something through laws. Divorce law guru and law firm partner Melissa Benson makes her debut on the show to answer the questions. Covenant Marriage: Do you have one? Should you have one? What happens if it blows up?