SCOTUS 2024: Conflict at the Texas Border, Bump Stocks, the NRA & Free Speech

Episode Notes

Transcript

Steven Schwinn:

It certainly cuts into the rule of law when the Texas governor and other governors are invited to openly defy this Supreme Court. You got to wonder who’s making the law here.

Speaker 2:

Welcome to the award-winning podcast, Lawyer 2 Lawyer with J. Craig Williams, bringing you the latest legal news and observations with the leading experts in the legal profession. You are listening to Legal Talk Network.

J. Craig Williams:

Welcome to Lawyer 2 Lawyer on Legal Talk Network. I’m Craig Williams, coming to you from Southern California. I write a blog named May It please the court and have two books out titled How To Get Sued In the Sled, my blog. May it please. The Court is up and running in this new year, so please check it out at may. It please the court.com. Also, this year I have coming out a new book called Bad Decisions, 10 Famous Cases that changed history and hopefully will lead itself to some sequels. In our last episode, we discussed administrative law, abortions, guns, presidential immunity, and ballot access. Just some of the upcoming cases that will become before the high court in 2024. Well, today on Lawyer 2 Lawyer, we’re going to continue that conversation with Professor Steven d Schwinn and spotlight some of the remaining standout SCOTUS cases on the docket and perhaps revisit presidential immunity just because of its importance.

Well, additionally, we’re also going to be talking about developing a conflict at the Texas border with Mexico, where the state is openly defying a recent SCOTUS ruling, and to help us better understand these cases, we’re joined again by Steven Schwinn from the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law. Steve teaches constitutional law, comparative constitutional law, human rights, and a especially designed legal writing class on civil rights. You’re my hero. Steve is the founding editor in chief of the American Constitution Society, Supreme Court Review and founding co-editor of the Constitutional Law Prof blog, one of my favorite blogs. Welcome back to the show, Steve

Steven Schwinn:

Craig, thanks so much for having me. It’s always an honor.

J. Craig Williams:

Well, there’s some standout cases of 2024. We’ve talked about a bunch in our last one, and today we’ve got to start talking about Texas Razor wire, the Biden administration and immigration. What is going on?

Steven Schwinn:

Oh my goodness. Where even to begin? So the Texas governor has put razor wire along the border of the Rio Grande River, which marks the boundary between Texas and therefore the United States and Mexico. The intent of the razor wire appears to be to deter migrants from coming across the border in the areas where the razor wire is because after all, they won’t be able to get past the razor wire. But it presents a significant danger to migrants where it is located along the river and the flow of the river makes crossing very dangerous. If migrants get to the other side, they can’t get through the razor wire, which leaves them abandoned on US soil in threat for their physical safety and even their life. And so US Border Patrol agents wanted to cut through the wire to get to the migrants because they have a legal obligation to do that, and Texas sought a judicial order saying that they could not cut through that wire.

Well, Texas actually got the judicial order from the Fifth Circuit saying that US Border Patrol agents could not cut through that wire except in cases of emergency. Well, of course, what the Border Patrol said was in the case of an emergency, it simply takes too long for us to sort all this stuff out. We need to be able to cut through that wire even before an emergency in order to prevent these things from happening in the first place. It turns out that the US Border Patrol has statutory authority to do exactly that, but still the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said the Border Patrol can’t do that. So the Border Patrol went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said that the Texas governor cannot prevent US border patrol from cutting through the razor wire. And so that’s kind of where things stand now. Then the ball gets kicked back to the Texas governor and the Texas governor starts making all these statements about how they’re going to not respect the Supreme Court ruling, how they’re not going to allow Border Patrol agents to cut through the wire and even how the state might succeed from the union.

And so we’re in a position now where the Texas governor and Texas governor supporters are saying that they’re going to openly defy the Supreme Court and prevent US border Patrol agents from doing their job by gaining access to these migrants who are trying to come across the border and have arrived on US soil. It’s not clear to me that they’re actually defying the Supreme Court. It may just be rhetoric. What they have started doing is putting up additional razor wire. And so there’s a question here about

J. Craig Williams:

That sounds like defiance to me.

Steven Schwinn:

Well, I’ll tell you in my view, it’s certainly defiance of the spirit of the Supreme Court order, if not the letter of it. And the Texas, again, the Texas governor and his supporters have made much of this and said that they are actually defying the Supreme Court probably for political reasons, even if technically they’re not. But I agree with you, Craig. I mean, this seems to violate the spirit of what the Supreme Court is telling them that they cannot do.

J. Craig Williams:

So what happens now? I mean, have we ever seen a state governor other than the Civil War times? Have we ever seen a state governor openly defy a Supreme Court order?

Steven Schwinn:

Well, I guess it would take us back to desegregation orders in the wake of Brown versus Board of Education in the 1950s where we did see state governors openly defy the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court came back and said, no, you can’t do that. And we saw the president call in the National Guard and get these governors in line with what the Supreme Court was saying. I hate to think that we’d be in a situation like that today in 2023, but we very well may be.

J. Craig Williams:

And what happens when a state secedes, I mean, walk me through the process of how a state says, alright, I’m done. We’re finished with you. And then there’s a joke going around on some of the social media that now Texans are worried about whether they’re going to get their social security checks.

Steven Schwinn:

Yeah, right. Well, the thing is, in our system, we really don’t have the idea of secession. States can’t secede. We settled that question in the Civil War, and it’s commonly understood today that there is no mechanism for succession short of again, an outright civil war. And so it’s not clear to me exactly what the Texas governor and his supporters have in mind here, whether there’s a game plan or whether there’s a process for this. But I guess I don’t really know what to say.

J. Craig Williams:

Does this destroy the rule of law? I mean, is that where we are?

Steven Schwinn:

Well, it certainly cuts into the rule of law when the Texas governor and other governors are invited to openly defy this Supreme Court. You got to wonder who’s making the law here

J. Craig Williams:

And now, does that give the rest of the country license to disregard decisions like Dobbs?

Steven Schwinn:

Well, that’s the flip side of the coin. And so what opponents of the governor have been saying is that if he can openly defy the Supreme Court, that other states can openly defy the Supreme Court as well.

J. Craig Williams:

And people.

Steven Schwinn:

And people. Absolutely.

J. Craig Williams:

Yeah. I mean the governor’s no more than a person other than he holds an office.

Steven Schwinn:

Well, that’s exactly right. And for some reason he has the idea that Texas gets to write its own immigration policy, which of course it does not, and ceases open defiance is actually protecting the state’s rights and constitutional values of federalism that we have in our system. Of course, the Supreme Court has said, that’s exactly not right, but nevermind to the Texas governor. He’s going to go forward anyway.

J. Craig Williams:

Let’s put ourselves in Greg Abbott’s shoes for a moment and for that matter, for all of Texans and say the border’s being overrun. We’re not getting help from the federal government. We’re taking these people and shipping ’em off in buses to different parts of the country to make them feel the pain that we’re feeling because we can’t, as a state can’t afford this. We need more help and we’re not getting it. So aren’t these steps justified?

Steven Schwinn:

It’s a little above my pay grade, but it seems to me that if you’re in that position, what you do is you sit down with the federal government and try to hammer out an agreement that works for everybody. I think everybody agrees that there is an issue, if not a crisis at the border with migration, but we don’t seem to be able to solve it politically. President Biden has made some moves to try to solve it. Senate Republicans, at least some of them seem to have come to the table, but others are saying that they don’t want an agreement. And so what do you do? It’s not entirely clear.

J. Craig Williams:

It’s a conundrum and it’s a mess. Well, let’s go down to another mess. We’re talking about Trump, 14th Amendment, third section, presidential immunity claims he’s got them all over the place. Cases are before the Supreme Court. What’s going to happen?

Steven Schwinn:

Oh my goodness. Yeah, this is quite another conundrum. So section three of the 14th Amendment prohibits anybody who served as an officer of the United States and took an oath to support the Constitution from serving as an officer of the United States if they engaged in insurrection. Now, it turns out there’s a lot in that to unpack one question, for example, is whether the presidency is an officer under the United States, so whether Section three even applies to the presidency. Another question is whether President Trump engaged in insurrection given his actions on January 6th, his statements, his tweets, and his inactions on January 6th in stopping the attack on the Capitol? And then a final question in the case is who gets to enforce section three? Thankfully, we don’t have a rich history of Section three enforcement in this country, and so we don’t really know who gets to enforce Section three.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled against Trump on all of those points. The court said that the presidency does fall within section three that Trump did engage in insurrection and that the state courts, that in this case, the Colorado Supreme Court had authority to enforce Section three, which meant in that case that Trump would not appear according to the court on the state’s primary ballot for the presidential primary Republican primary, Trump appealed that to the Supreme Court. There are a couple dozen other of these cases working their way through state courts at the same time, there are very different procedural positions and different courts have held differently in different ways, but at the end of the day, there have only been two states that have disqualified Trump from the presidential primary ballot, Maine and Colorado. So the case is now at the Supreme Court, and we really have no idea what the Supreme Court is going to do.

I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court ruled in a way that would remove Trump from state ballots or allow states to remove Trump from state ballots. And so I suspect that the court’s going to look for some kind of escape hatch here and probably rule that Section three requires a congressional act to enforce it, for example. And that states can’t unilaterally enforce Section three against Trump, that Congress would have to do that, which would give a win to Trump, but dodged the harder questions about whether Trump engaged in an insurrection, for example. And so it’s hard to say what the court’s going to do in this case, but that’s my best guess, Craig.

J. Craig Williams:

And that ruling would be consistent with the way that it happened in the Civil War, that Congress was the one who made the decision not to seat certain congressmen. That’s really been, I think the only section three enactment that’s happened. Is that right? Well,

Steven Schwinn:

Yeah, that’s exactly right. But you put your finger on it, a kind of technical argument about section three that actually is sort of interesting. Section three says that Congress can remove the disability of disqualification, which suggests by one reading that Congress doesn’t need to enforce the disqualification in the first place. That Congress’s only rule is in removing the disqualification once a state court, for example, has imposed the disqualification. And so there’s a kind of textual reading of section three of the 14th amendment that says that Congress really doesn’t have to enforce it, that states can enforce it. Congress’s only rule is in removing a disqualification after a state court has imposed it.

J. Craig Williams:

But that is, on the other hand, completely inconsistent with the way that voting occurs in the United States, which is all under state control.

Steven Schwinn:

It’s all under state control. That’s exactly right.

J. Craig Williams:

Well, Steve, we got to take a quick break to hear a word from our sponsors. We’ll be right back and welcome back to Lawyer to Lawyer. I’m joined by Steven Schwinn from the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law. We’ve been talking about Trump’s disqualification and presidential immunity, but as we kind of twist our way through this, I want to revert back to the Massachusetts Supreme Court surprise of all surprises, they did not disqualify Trump. I mean, just from the standpoint of what you would expect out of that state’s court. Well,

Steven Schwinn:

I think yeah, that’s exactly right. But out of an abundance of caution, I think that there are some state judiciaries and some state decision makers. So we’re talking not only about state courts, but also about other state tribunals and state election officials who are making the decision that they’re not well suited to enforce section three that either Congress has to, or the federal courts or somebody else has to enforce section three, but it’s not their job. Now, in some of these rulings, what we’re seeing them say is that Trump did engage in an insurrection and that he would be covered by section three, but it’s just not their job to enforce it. Right.

J. Craig Williams:

And to some extent, in a presidential nationwide election, there needs to be some level of uniformity if he’s on some ballots and not on others. What a mess that is.

Steven Schwinn:

It’s a great point, and I think the court’s going to be acutely concerned about that when it hears oral arguments in the case. My guess is what it probably wants to avoid is a sort of patchwork where different states are disqualifying Trump and other states are saying that he is qualified. I don’t think the court’s going to want to Gogo there.

J. Craig Williams:

That would just create a whole nother mess. Well, anyway, let’s talk about the National Rifle Association situation and free speech. There’s another one. We have New York out here saying we’re not going to do business with the NRA and preventing people in the state or business people in the state from doing business with the NRA. Can that really happen?

Steven Schwinn:

Super interesting case. So this is NRA versus vullo. What happened in this case is the NRA alleges that the New York State Department of Financial Services coerced insurers from doing business with the NRA. And I want to break that down a little bit, Craig, because some of this was news to me. So it turns out that the NRA had relationships with different insurance companies that provided insurance products to NRA members that would actually insure against intentional and reckless and even criminally negligent acts with firearms that injured or killed another person. Yeah, right. So this got the attention of the Department of Financial Services, and they started having conversations with some of these insurers and some of their underwriters, including interesting Lloyds of London. And through those conversations, they allegedly persuaded these insurers and underwriters not to do business with the NRA. The Department of Financial Services took a couple of other actions as well.

They sent some guidance letters on risk management to these companies, and they entered into consent decrees with some of these companies where the companies admitted that they provided the NRA with what amounted to be unlawful products that is these insurance policies against these criminal acts. And so between these three acts, the conversations that the Department of Financial Services had with the underwriters and with the insurance companies, the guidance letters and the consent decrees, the NRA claims that the New York State Department of Financial Services coerced the insurance companies and the underwriters from doing business with NRA in violation of the nras rights,

J. Craig Williams:

Who are these lawyers? I mean, the easy way to solve that problem is to file a lawsuit against the NRA to disband them for unlawful acts.

Steven Schwinn:

Yeah, right? Yeah. This is really something, and in some ways, just the latest chapter in what seems to be an emerging book of NRA missteps and misdeeds and illegalities, the Department of Justice, the US Department of Justice weighed in on the case and their position I think is an interesting one and one that may attract the attention of the court. What they say is, look, the government shouldn’t be going around bullying companies to do or not to do business with another company. So to the extent that the New York State Department of Financial Services actually physically met with these insurance companies and underwriters and bullied them into not doing business with the NRA, the government says that may be problematic. But as to the guidance letters on risk management, and as to the consent decrees that admit wrongdoing on the part of the insurers and the underwriters, what the government says is those are just ordinary enforcement mechanisms on the part of the government and they don’t implicate any rights on the part of the NRA. And so the court should be less concerned about those. And that strikes me as not a off the wall way to approach the case. It’s pretty reasonable. It seems reasonable, and one that might attract the attention of the court.

J. Craig Williams:

Well, let’s talk about some more bullying. On the other hand, we have governments saying that you can’t do that, but yet we have the government saying you can’t have false speech.

Steven Schwinn:

Yes, we do. And three really, really interesting cases that fall into two different baskets. So in one basket, we have two cases coming out of Texas and Florida where Texas and Florida have laws that prohibit or ban social media companies from themselves banning or blocking content based on the viewpoint or politics of the speaker. What Texas and Florida are going at here is when Facebook, for example, or the old Twitter or X or any other social media platform, bans or blocks content because of the views or politics of the poster. And what they’re really concerned about here, what they say they’re concerned about is that these social media companies are blocking politically conservative content from their sites. What the social media companies would say is, well, we may be blocking some of that content, but it’s because it’s harmful speech in one way or another.

The social media companies sued and said, that violates our first amendment rights to control our own content on our own private platforms. After all, these are private companies, they’re hosting internet platforms that host speech, and what they say is, look, we ought to be able to regulate the speech on our own platforms in whatever way that we want without the interference from Texas and Florida governments. And so that issue now is going before the Supreme Court. That’s kind of on one side of the coin, but I’d mentioned that there’s this other basket or other issue. This is kind of the flip side of this case, where individuals who have been blocked by social media corporations for posting disinformation about covid have sued the Biden administration claiming that the Biden administration has coerced these social media companies into taking down their content and regulating their content.

And so this is kind of an interesting question from a First Amendment standpoint, and again, sort of the flip side of the Texas and Florida case where you have the plaintiffs in this case arguing that the social media companies have been transformed into a government actor for the purpose of the First Amendment because they have acquiesced to the Biden administration bullying of them to take down disinformation about COVID-19. The technical reason why that’s important is because the First Amendment only applies against government actors. It doesn’t apply against private actors like social media companies. And so in order to prevail on this claim, the plaintiffs really have to argue that the social media companies have been transformed into a government actor because they’ve acquiesced to the Biden administration’s bullying, the Biden administration of course, being a government actor, and that the social media companies are kind of working hand in glove with the Biden administration to shut down on this disinformation.

J. Craig Williams:

But how is this disinformation any different than yelling fire in a crowded theater?

Steven Schwinn:

Right. And so some of the disinformation may not be protected speech under Supreme Court precedent. Others of it might be protected speech under Supreme Court precedent. Craig, in recent decades, the Supreme Court has really narrowed categories of unprotected speech. And what I mean by that is the court has said whenever it’s given the opportunity in the last couple of decades that if the government is regulating speech, even speech that is widely considered harmful speech in our society, the court has said We’re going to narrow the government’s ability to do that. We’re going to allow more speech, not less speech when there’s any question, we’re going to restrict the government in prohibiting harmful speech, even harmful speech that is widely regarded as not useful or just outright harmful in our society. And so how that’s going to play in this case I think is kind of an open question. I suspect where the court’s going to focus its energies on this case is whether the social media companies are even First Amendment actors that are subject to First Amendment constraints, or whether the social media companies can make a decision to shut down disinformation content even if they’re persuaded or at the outside bullied by a government actor.

J. Craig Williams:

Well, Steve, we need to take another quick break to hear a word from our sponsors. We’ll be right back and welcome back to Lawyer to Lawyer. I’m back with Steven Schwinn from the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law. We’ve been talking about disinformation fire in a crowded theater, first Amendment rights, private actors, public actors. But let me just ask the question. We heard President Trump at the time say that perhaps Clorox will solve the problem and a bunch of other kind of insane remarks that he made about Covid all disinformation should they have been prevented?

Steven Schwinn:

Absolutely. Yeah. Without question disinformation. As it turns out, the First Amendment does not restrict the government itself in what the government says, and so the government can say things that are skewed or biased with regard to their content or viewpoint, and the government can even provide disinformation or outright false information without being restrained by the First Amendment. Now, there are checks on that. Of course, the primary check would be the ballot box. If we don’t like what the government is telling us or we think it’s false or harmful, we can vote them out of office. And some might argue that’s exactly what happened in 2020 in response, at least in part to some of those statements that we heard from President Trump.

J. Craig Williams:

Well, the court’s got more on its hands bump stocks and machine guns.

Steven Schwinn:

Just another really big case,

J. Craig Williams:

Just in a manner speaking, it’s kind of a machine gun approach this year, isn’t it? Yeah,

Steven Schwinn:

Exactly. It’s indeed. So federal law bans machine guns and then goes on to define machine guns as weapons that shoot automatically by a single function of the trigger. What that means is you pull the trigger once and you get multiple rounds. Bump stocks are a device that a person can put to a semi-automatic weapon, not a machine gun, but a semi-automatic weapon and put it on the bump stock, which is the part of the gun that rusts on your shoulder when you shoot. The way the mechanism operates is it actually leverages the fire of the gun with a spring mechanism to kind of shake the gun forward and backward so that the shooter only has to hold their finger down once to achieve a multiple round shot. In other words, it transforms a semi-automatic weapon into a machine gun according to the Bureau of Alcohol, tobacco and Firearms.

And so the A TF in response to the shooting in Las Vegas in 2017, you might remember here, the shooter was able to shoot so many rounds because they were using a bump stock. The A TF banned bump stocks in response to that shooting. A number of plaintiffs didn’t like that and said that federal law doesn’t authorize the A TF to ban bump stocks because technically bump stocks do not allow a shooter to shoot automatically with a single function of the trigger because bump stocks, what they actually do is bump against your finger to make multiple shots, hundreds of shots within a minute by sort of bumping forward and backward against the shooter’s finger. And so what they’re arguing is that this is actually multiple pulls of the trigger.

J. Craig Williams:

Right, but on the other hand, it’s no different than what a machine gun accomplishes under the meaning of the statute.

Steven Schwinn:

No, that’s exactly right. And so for the intent of the statute, this actually operates exactly like a machine gun. And moreover, what the government’s saying here is that technically speaking, the way these bump stocks work is the whole string of fires is triggered by a single pull of the trigger, and so it technically fits within the definition of machine gun under federal law. This is a highly technical textual issue that the court’s just going to have to figure out is does the bump stock fall within this definition of machine gun at the federal level? It’s one of those instances where if the court were to rule one way or the other, however the court rules, Congress can step in and clarify the definition of machine gun in a way that would either allow or disallow the A TF from regulating these bump stocks.

J. Craig Williams:

Right. Well, Steve, we’re almost running out of time, but I do want to follow up on a discussion that we had last time about the Chevron defense, the principle that courts should defer to federal agencies when they interpret cases. I think on January 17th we had arguments. We’ve now had the benefit of that. What’s your thought from what the justices questioned?

Steven Schwinn:

My guess is that they’re going to limit or overturn Chevron and limit agency’s abilities to interpret federal law and that that’s going to deal a sharp blow to federal agencies across the board and limit their ability to federal law. The theory here is that that would kick the ball back to Congress to legislate with more specificity and more guidance for the agencies. But I’m highly dubious about that. I think what it’s going to mean is that the net result is that agencies are doing less regulation,

J. Craig Williams:

Right. All in the continuing mantra of less government.

Steven Schwinn:

Well, I think that’s exactly right. I mean, this is a kind of libertarian movement to get federal government and government regulation out of people’s hair, and this is one front in that war, but there are many fronts, and we’ve seen the Supreme Court rule almost uniformly in favor of a kind of libertarian vision of what government is all about.

J. Craig Williams:

Well, and speaking of that, what’s your prediction on how these SCOTUS rulings are going to come down on the guns? They’ve been pretty gun centric lately.

Steven Schwinn:

They have been pretty gun centric. Well, it’s hard to say because they present very different issues. The Bump stock case that we talked about, I think it’s actually really hard to predict. We’ve seen some surprises with the Supreme Court in the way certain justices have interpreted certain statutory language. Here I’m thinking about Justice Gorsuch’s interpretation of sex in the BOC case and applying that term to individuals who are lesbian and gay and transsexual individuals in kind of a surprising way. And so we might see some surprises in the Bump stock case. In the First Amendment case that we talked about. It does deal with guns because the NRA is at the center of it, but it deals with other First Amendment values and principles that I think may cut different ways for some or even all of the justices.

J. Craig Williams:

I have one last question about your impression of a particular amicus brief that was filed by the historians in support of the efforts of the Colorado Supreme Court.

Steven Schwinn:

Wow. Powerful is all I can say, and these are some real powerhouse historians here who are arguing for the interpretation of section three of the 14th Amendment that was adopted by the Colorado Supreme Court, which would cut against Trump. Just to be clear on that point, the brief is important because the court will focus on history and history and tradition in interpreting section three of the 14th Amendment. And so the real question is here, will the court defer to the expert historians or will the court think that they can do history better than the expert historians can and interpret section three in a different way?

J. Craig Williams:

One part of the brief that struck me, it said analysis of this evidence demonstrates that decision makers crafted section three to cover the president and to create an enduring check on insurrection requiring no additional action from Congress.

Steven Schwinn:

I’m not a historian, but what I know about section three and the history of section three and the animating purposes of section three, that strikes me as spot on.

J. Craig Williams:

I think so too. I don’t think they have a choice on this one. Well, Steve, what questions should I have asked you here that I haven’t?

Steven Schwinn:

Oh my goodness. Craig, I got to tell you, I think we managed to cover pretty much everything. I don’t have anything in my notes that we haven’t covered, and the fact we covered so much and went over time, I think just tells us how busy the Supreme Court is with some very, very important issues.

J. Craig Williams:

I think so too. Well, I think then it’s imperative that once we get some of these rulings and we start to read these a hundred to pages worth of decisions that we get you back on to understand really what’s going on and what the effect’s going to be. So thank you very much for being on today’s show.

Steven Schwinn:

It’s been a pleasure. Thanks so much, Craig.

J. Craig Williams:

Well, here are a few of my thoughts about today’s topic. What an absolute mess. We’ve got rogue, state and Texas deciding that it’s not going to follow Supreme Court opinions, which just opens up a floodgate for other issues. We have Supreme Court rulings that are overturning inconsistent or consistent rulings in the past. We’ve got a Supreme Court that’s on a completely different path than anything we’ve seen out of the Supreme Court in the path inventing new doctrines. It’s just enough to drive you crazy as an attorney trying to follow this. I don’t know what to say. We’ll cover with Steve again as the cases, as they come out and keep you informed about what’s happening because it’s certainly not very understandable. Well, that’s it for Greg’s ran on today’s topic. Let me know what you think, and if you’ve liked what you heard today from Steve, please rate us on Apple Podcasts, your favorite podcasting app. You can also visit us at the legal talk network.com, where you can sign up for our newsletter. I’m Craig Williams. Thanks for listening. Please join us next time for another great legal topic. Remember when you want legal think Lawyer 2 Lawyer.

Speaker 2:

Thanks for listening to Lawyer 2 Lawyer produced by the broadcast professionals at Legal Talk Network. Subscribe to the RSS feed on legal talk network.com or in iTunes. The views expressed by the participants of this program are their own and do not represent the views of nor are they endorsed by Legal Talk Network. Its officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives, shareholders, and subsidiaries. None of the content should be considered legal advice. As always, consult a lawyer.

Continue Reading