Supreme Court Cases and Your Questions!

This week on The Outlaw Lawyer, Joe and I talk about big cases that are due before the Supreme Court this year and take some listener questions.

Up next. Outlaw Lawyer with Josh Whitaker. The Outlaw Lawyer, we are on the air. Josh Whitaker, Joe Hamer, Whitaker and Hamer Law Firm. 46 combined years of experience between these two and offices in Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro and Fuquay-Varina. We talk all legalese on this show, estate and planning and administration, personal injury, criminal and traffic, family law.

If it's topical, they are on top of it. And folks, if you've got any legal questions of your own, they're here for you. Here's the number to call, 800-659-1186.

That's 800-659-1186. You can also email questions to the show and we will use these in an upcoming episode. It's questions at theoutlawlawyer.com and online.

Check us out, the website, theoutlawlawyer.com. Gentlemen, welcome in. I know it's been a busy week, but what's on the program today?

Looking forward to it. Morgan, Morgan, it's good to talk to you. This week, what we wanted to do, the Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court is back in session. They have scheduled oral arguments on a lot of big cases for October, November, December.

And so I thought it would be good to review two big cases today. And then we also have some listener questions. But before we get to any of that, Joseph, how are you doing?

Joshua, I'm good, man. I really live for this show and talking with you, spending this time together. We're very busy. Fortunately, we're very busy. Don't get to see each other as much as we'd like. So this is really my time, man, to disconnect and to really just enjoy this legal conversation that we have every week.

You know, it is pleasant, Joe. For those who don't know, Joe and I are the managing partners of Whitaker and Hamer. Like Morgan said, a law firm that has offices soon. We're getting further to the west. I know, Joe, I haven't talked to you too much, but our Gastonia, North Carolina office is getting ready to launch next month. So we're pretty excited about getting down towards the Charlotte-Mecklenburg area. That's big news for us.

Absolutely, man. Our goal as a law firm is to basically, when you walk out of your house, we want there to be an office within 10 feet of you, everywhere. It's basically going to be McDonald's, except for Whitaker and Hamer offices all over the place. I was going to say Starbucks, but yeah, Mickey D's.

I get it. Starbucks is more classy. It will be, let's say Starbucks.

Yeah, that sounds a little bit classier. So we're excited. It'll be our first office kind of in that area.

We've got some other things to announce as time moves on here and the end of 2021 and 2022. It's a pretty good week, Joe. I guess it was last week we went to Guns N' Roses, but that was a good show. Well attended. Everybody seemed okay with the COVID mask.

It's pretty fun. It's good to see those guys touring in their late 50s. Yeah, man. I tell you, everybody was extremely comfortable. And if we can attribute that to anything, I think we can attribute that to the copious amounts of alcohol that I'd estimate 92% of the crowd had ingested during that evening.

Everyone very, very, very comfortable. Interesting show, man. Started off, I thought personally, started off a little rough. Axl Rose, very old. Done a lot of screaming.

Vocal chords maybe not in as good of shape as they once were. And I'm going to be honest with you, man. Early on, I thought it was going to be very different than what it was. But ultimately, it seems like he warmed up. Seems like he really eased into it.

Ended up being real good, man. You may not know this about me, Joe, but when I was a younger man, I think it was sixth grade. I think it was when I was in sixth grade there was a tour. It was Metallica. Guns N' Roses, or Metallica I guess was opening for Guns N' Roses, maybe I can't remember.

Huge tour. Wanted to go so bad. I was in sixth grade. I had no money. I couldn't drive. I wasn't getting there, right?

So I couldn't. I missed that concert. And then last year I got to see Metallica, right? And then this year I got to see Guns N' Roses. So I'm slowly making up for all the missed concerts I didn't go to in middle school. And you can drive now. So everything's turning around for you, man, since sixth grade.

It sounds like things have really improved. But anyway, so the Supreme Court is back in session and we kind of already know what cases they're going to hear. And there's a couple, I think we probably mentioned them here or there on prior shows, but just want to kind of do a preview since we're going to get some decisions on these cases. But the first one is going to be Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. And so we'll talk about that case, but that is going to go right to the heart of Roe v. Wade. And Joe, we spent some time talking about the constitutional right to privacy, how the court has found a right for a woman to have an abortion. So we spent some time on that, but this case is going to be big. It is.

It is, Josh. We'll talk more about it, but you've got the Roe v. Wade decision, that whole bodily autonomy issue and the right to privacy. As we've said before, very hot button issue, something that really divides people. And it's going to be very interesting to see how this goes because you're definitely going to see some kind of movement on that issue, whether it be some reaffirmation of it or some change to the way that it's been handled thus far. But this is a big case, man, and it's going to have pretty wide-reaching implications.

So we'll have a lot to talk about in regards to that. And Joe, I don't know if you heard, I don't know if you saw the headlines, but did you see where there had been challenges? They have a vaccine mandate.

We've talked about that a lot for public employees and, you know, state employees. I think it was, I think it might have been like public school employees. I can't remember exactly, but it was another vaccine case where some folks, you know, who were objected to getting the vaccine brought a challenge. I think it was Sotomayor. I think it was Justice Sotomayor who declined to hear that challenge. So it was another incident where the court, you know, didn't really have much to comment on vaccine mandates.

Again, kind of reestablishing that your employer, state, private, federal, can make you get the vaccine. So I saw that headline too. I meant to mention that earlier and didn't bring it up, but just another one of those.

Yeah. You know, we talked a lot about that. I mean, I think we've covered that several times in the past. And, you know, our prediction at the time was kind of exactly like you said. We basically theorized that your employer is going to be able to mandate this and it's going to be something that they can say you've got to do. And like you said, it seems like that's the way that it's trending. Whether you agree with that or not, it seems like that's what we're seeing and it seems like that's what we're going to continue to see.

And, you know, it's interesting. That challenge that you referenced, Josh, the challengers actually were complaining that the mandate was discriminatory against the public school employees. Because according to their challenge, there was other city employees, including some that actually work with children just like these teachers, who were allowed to remain in their jobs without vaccination as long as they underwent weekly testing.

So I guess they were basically saying the fact that these people can test weekly, we should have that option as well if we don't want to elect to get vaccinated. But it sounds like that challenge is not going to be heard before the Supreme Court. So, yeah, like we said, it looks like that trend continues. You know, it'll be interesting. You know, California has the and I haven't read much about it.

I just saw the headlines. But, you know, California is going to have the mandate for school aged children. And you know, that one's going to get challenged and that's going to be a little different fact pattern.

So it's interesting. I wonder if the court will hear that one when it gets there. But that'll be kind of a different take on this vaccine mandate.

Now, you're not talking about an employer. You're talking about, you know, kids or, you know, children in a public school scenario. Can they be forced to get this vaccine because it's going to be approved for kids soon or what have you? So that's coming down the road, it sounds like.

Yeah, Josh, I'm going to make a bold prediction. And if the idea of children being mandated to wear masks in school, it prompts people to go to their school board meetings and yell and scream and show out. I'm going to predict the vaccine mandate being imposed upon school aged children is going to have a strong reaction as well.

Probably, you know, and this is probably a good point we're going to be talking about. Well, the second case real quick that we're going to be talking about today, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin is a Second Amendment case. And Joe and I have already spent some time on a previous episode just talking about the facts of the case, but want to preview it again since it's up for oral arguments now. But, you know, Second Amendment abortion vaccine mandates, when Joe and I talk about this stuff, we're really trying to be as objective and reasonable as possible here at the Outlaw Lawyer. That's what we're trying to do. We're trying to take these items out of the news cycle that kind of need to be examined like an attorney would legally, just like it was coming before us in our office and our practice.

And try to get to the bottom of legally what we think is going to happen. So you might not really know how Joe and I feel about a specific topic unless we tell you, hey, I feel this way or I disagree. But usually we're going to try to be as objective as possible. So you, you know, I always put that out there to prevent the angry calls.

And it doesn't prevent them. We get yelled at a lot. And I want to say, you know, we still appreciate you guys listening. We're as reasonable, rational attorneys that we can kind of disconnect ourselves from the emotional aspects of things. And, you know, we can have disagreements and people can disagree with us. And again, we still appreciate everybody that listens to the show.

Call us and yell at us if you need to. We'll listen to it. But the point, there's so much bias out there. You get such a slanted news that's delivered to you, whether it be a liberal bias, conservative bias. It seems like almost every aspect of the news these days, it has some kind of tint to it and it's leaning some way and it's being presented in more of a subjective manner to push an agenda. So the whole point of this is to do the opposite of that and just come at it from an unbiased perspective.

You know, you don't really need to know. We do have personal thoughts and feelings on things, but that's not the point of the show. The point is to present things neutrally, examine the facts and just look at the law.

Guys, we're up against our first break. I like the subtitle to the show. The Outlaw Lawyer is what everybody knows the show by, but I think it's agree to disagree and it's okay to absolutely have your own opinion.

That's what the show is about. And they are going to hit all of these legal topics each week here on The Outlaw Lawyer. It's Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer, managing partners at Whitaker and Hamer Law Firm. 46 combined years experience between these two. And again, offices in Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro and Fuquay-Varina and soon to be in Gastonia.

And the goal is every corner, right? Just like a Starbucks, we're going to have law firms everywhere. But we have more legalese to talk about. If you've got a question about what's going on in your life legally, there's a way to get in touch with a firm.

Just call 800-659-1186 and leave your name and contact information and maybe a little bit about what you're dealing with. And an attorney will be back in touch with you. And you can also email questions at questions at theoutlawlawyer.com. We'll use those in upcoming shows.

We've got a few today that we're going to get to. And you can also look at the website, theoutlawlawyer.com. Coming up next, we're going to look at the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case and how that might affect abortions in the future. The Outlaw Lawyer on the air. Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer managing partners at Whitaker and Hamer Law Firm.

46 combined years of experience. And again, offices in Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro, Fuquay-Varina and soon to be in Gastonia. We talk legalese each and every week here on the program and it ranges from family law, criminal and traffic, personal injury, estate planning and administration, real estate. A lot goes into the program and the guys are always ready to talk about the legal issues that are out there and let me tell you, there are plenty of them. If you want to get in touch with the show and you've got a question about what's going on in your life legally, here's the number. 800-659-1186.

That's 800-659-1186. You can also email questions to the program. We'll use them in an upcoming show if we like them, obviously. Questions at theoutlawlawyer.com and you can always check out the website, theoutlawlawyer.com.

Fellas, I know you're going to get into this, but I'm actually very interested. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and what's the latest there? Well, Morgan, we're going to talk about abortion and so I always preface this. We kind of ended the last segment talking about it, but we're just going to look at the case that's before the court and the arguments that either side may make here and just some kind of general observations. But Joe, I can't remember, it was a week or two ago, we talked about the Texas law that got a lot of attention where arguably the state of Texas deputized citizens to sue anyone who helped facilitate an abortion from doctors to drivers to family members who may get someone to an abortion clinic. And that law was declined emergency review because I think we kind of said it on there had been no damage yet. It wasn't, as attorneys say, it wasn't ripe. And so there is a lawsuit now. I don't know if you've heard that much about that one yet, Joe. Yeah, no.

So, like you said, that one was not ripe. And any time we talk about abortion, the one case that really comes to mind and is at the forefront of that debate is really Roe v. Wade. That's kind of where it all, that's kind of where everyone references, that's where the majority of what we're talking about today stems from.

So I think it's always good to kind of give a rehash of that just for anybody who's unfamiliar with the facts. So just to give you a little bit of a rundown, 1970, Jane Roe, which is just a fictional name that was used in court documents to protect that plaintiff's identity, fought a lawsuit against Henry Wade, who was the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas, challenging a Texas law that made abortion illegal except by a doctor's order to save a woman's life. And in that lawsuit, Roe basically alleged that the state laws were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right of personal privacy, something we've talked about a lot, which is protected by several amendments, the first, the fourth, the fifth.

We did a whole show kind of going over everything as far as that right to privacy is concerned. And ultimately, the question there was, does the Constitution recognize a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? And what the court found was that basically in that due process clause of the 14th Amendment, there is that fundamental right to privacy that protects a pregnant woman's choice to have an abortion. But just like we talked about several times in the past, that right has to be balanced against the government's interest in protecting the woman's health and protecting the viability of the potentiality of human life. So there's your super brief Roe v. Wade summary to get us up to speed.

Well, and in the Dobbs case, this is what we see over the years. You see certain states, they will make laws limiting when you can get an abortion. So we know we have a constitutional, we know women have a constitutional right to receive an abortion. And where states, where we get into trouble, that's not even correct, where we have cases come up is how can that right be limited? When is the, you know, you'll see some cases that talk about when is the fetus viable and thus has some constitutional, maybe some constitutional rights of its own. And so you see these states trying to limit that way. And so we've talked about the Texas law that kind of has de facto made abortions illegal.

And there's probably another challenge. There's a lawsuit right now on that one where a doctor who came out, I can't remember the, maybe Braid, Dr. Braid, he had an op-ed and I think the Washington Post where he said, hey, I performed an abortion in Texas and then three people sued him. And so he's combined that, removed it to federal court and that's kind of pending and we're kind of watching how that plays out because that's kind of interesting. But Mississippi, so in Dobbs, it's restrictions in Mississippi. And so arguably, if you look at these things, Mississippi has the most, not the most maybe, maybe Texas has the most, but is another state that has a lot of restrictions on when and how and where a woman can get an abortion. And the theory behind it is these restrictions kind of add up to the point where it's very difficult for a woman to exercise that constitutional right. And so Mississippi has a new ban on all abortions after 15 weeks. And I think that was kind of the tipping point for this case, as I understand it, is this ban is what's being challenged. And Mississippi has other restrictions.

So they have, if you want to get an abortion, you have to meet with a doctor and there's a 24 hour mandatory delay for the patient to think about it, which requires two trips and only physicians can perform, can't use telemedicine. So there's all these limits. And so that's what the court spends a lot of time looking at is what is a justified limit to this constitutional right and what isn't. So that generates all this case law and this will be the new one.

So this will be Dobbs. And, you know, I think a lot of people's concern is we have a new court. We have a lot of new members of the court that came in under Trump and we don't know exactly where they all stand. But Joe Roe v. Wade is precedent. And that means something.

It does mean something. But what it means, again, subject to debate for some. And it's clear the court has held that there is a constitutional right of a woman, you know, along with that right of privacy, which entails the right to make those decisions with her body and the right to have an abortion. But at the same time, the court made it clear that that is not just a completely unlimited right. And we come back to that same question where we're going to balance certain things and we're going to balance that right to privacy with the public health, public interest, things of that nature. And so that's really where the issues arise and where, like you said, the conflict arises and we see these cases.

And in this case, it's really simple. And Dobbs, the question is, is a law that bans all what we'll call pre-viability abortions constitutional. And it'll be extremely, extremely interesting because, like you said, there's been a lot of speculation as to how these justices, we've got some new justices, we don't know exactly where they're going to stand on the issue. So of extreme interest to a lot of people, how they're going to rule and evidence of how extremely interested so many parties are in this case. When you've got things coming before the Supreme Court, you can have what's called amicus briefs, which are basically friend of the court briefs that people will file, persuading the court, giving information to the court. There's been over 1,125 of those filed just in this case.

Oh, wow. I hadn't seen that number yet, but yeah, those are – and I went and looked at a couple on both sides. So these are organizations, some are religious, some are not, but these are organizations that fight for folks to either have – be able to exercise that right pretty freely or if they're on the other side, they want to limit that right, but they both cite case law. No matter what side you're on, there's probably a pretty legitimate and arguably good argument either way, and a lot of these try to include science and try to determine when a fetus is viable by itself, when it has a heartbeat. There's all kinds of scientific arguments that go hand in hand with these legal arguments that are going to be made, but I think oral arguments right now are set for December. I think they've set October, November, December.

So these were in November or December, but I think I'm going to try to listen to these. You can watch them, and this will be – for attorneys, this will be exciting because this is something that we just don't know what the court's going to do, and the court honors – it's a tradition. Once something's precedent, it's hard to overturn. I don't think we're going to see anything be overturned, but it is going to be – it's a new court. We don't know what they're going to do. It is exciting for attorneys, Josh. I propose that we tailgate for the oral arguments to regain for it.

We'll set up a screen outdoors and throw it up there and have some beers and see what happens, but no, in all seriousness, this will, of course, have repercussions across the country. And I think folks that are ardent supporters of abortion, they're really afraid that this limit's going to be upheld, and then what does that mean going forward? What are other states going to be able to do?

Yeah, it's like you said, Josh. Roe v. Wade precedent. Highly unlikely we're going to see that overturned, but there's a lot of room for interpretation there, and that's really what the issue is. There's a lot of what restrictions are reasonable. I think it's clear that it's been held that it's not a completely unlimited right, like we said, so some restriction of it is going to be deemed permissible, and that's really where the sticking point is for everybody. It's where do you draw the line, and so when you've got those super strongly opinionated individuals on each side, it's very interesting to think about where that point of compromise is going to be. If at all, you've got a lot of folks who look at abortion from day one. They're never going to see it as being something that should be permitted, but again, I don't know that we're going to see anything that far. I think, if anything, you may see some additional restrictions being placed, but if nothing else, we're definitely going to get some kind of clarification, and we're going to get some kind of additional statement from the court on what is and what is not reasonable. So again, very, very interesting to see where it's going to go. Well, Joe, it's interesting you say that.

We always talk about this balance of equities, and this constitutional right is going to dovetail into our next topic because we're going to talk about the Second Amendment and balancing our rights to maintain and bear arms versus a society's rights, not to have everyone armed all the time, 24 hours a day. So we'll talk about that more up next. The Outlaw Lawyer is Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer, managing partners at Whitaker and Hamer Law Firm. Again, Raleigh offices, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro, and Fuquay Arena, and soon to be in Gastonia. Agree or disagree, you can always call and leave a message, 800-659-1186. You can also email your questions or your concerns at questions at theoutlawlawyer.com, and check out the website. Podcasts are there as well, theoutlawlawyer.com. We're going to talk about the guns.

That's coming up next. The Outlaw Lawyer, Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer, managing partners at Whitaker and Hamer Law Firm. 46 combined years of experience. Offices, Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro, and Fuquay Arena, and soon to be in Gastonia. If you've got a question for the program, if you've got a legal question about what's going on in your life, here's the number, 800-659-1186.

That's 800-659-1186. Leave your name, leave your contact information, an attorney will be in touch with you. You can also email questions to the show, questions at theoutlawlawyer.com, and please check out the website, theoutlawlawyer.com. We talk legalese each and every week here on The Outlaw Lawyer. Guys, I know guns always a big, big topic, and we've got it again this week. Yeah, Morgan, the next case that we want to point out, you know, the Supreme Court hasn't kind of announced their docket for the next couple of months, and there's a lot on there.

A lot of times the Supreme Court, they're hearing cases that are real technical in nature about procedure, criminal procedure, and those aren't very exciting to talk about on the radio, especially if non-attorneys are listening. But another one of the big cases they're going to have, me and Joe have talked about before, but it's New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruin, which comes out of the state of New York and is about concealed carry permits. It's kind of what started it. Joe, what do you remember about it? Do you remember what the law was there? I remember it being extremely, extremely restrictive, Josh.

That's the first thing that sticks out to me in my memory. So I have family, an extended family in New York. I'm born and raised in Raleigh, North Carolina, but I have extended family up in the state of New York, and their concealed carry law is one of the more strict in the nation, and so they have a concealed carry process. I'm probably not remembering it exactly right, but here I think the law allows you, if you have a proper cause, if you can show the need, if you apply for a concealed carry permit, they will grant you one, but they pretty much don't grant many. And they have a lesser one, so they have a lesser one where they don't give you a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public if you don't show proper cause, but they'll let you carry if you're going hunting or you're doing something else. And their argument basically comes down to, in New York or in the U.S., there's no right for you to carry a concealed handgun.

They would argue that under the Second Amendment, certainly you have the right to bear arms in your house for self-defense, but you don't have a constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun. And so that's something the state has to grant you, and that's why there's a permit process, and New York arguably rarely approves those, and so it's very difficult, if not impossible, to get a concealed carry handgun permit. We had a couple of folks who applied for a permit.

They were denied. They were turned down, and so that's where this lawsuit, they sued the state and said, hey, you're just not giving us the right to carry a concealed weapon. We have the right to bear arms, and so this has made its way all the way up to the Supreme Court, and that's where we find ourselves today. Yeah, super restrictive, Josh, and I mean, just in general, you know, we're not from New York. We're not in New York, but the way that I understand just New York law in general, not overly favorable to gun owners and gun enthusiasts.

You know, whether it be attempting to open carry, whether it be attempting to get that concealed carry license, it's not something that's very easy to do, if even that possible, in the state of New York. And, you know, there was a lot of, you got a lot of, people love their guns, man. I don't think it's a stretch to say that, you know, and people really hold, you know, that Second Amendment right. The people who interpret that the way that they interpret it really hold that right extremely close to their heart. And it's a super important issue for them because a lot of people, a lot of people see that as, you know, a kind of the one thing that separates the people from some wild, tyrannical governmental overreach.

And when you have anyone who thinks like that, and you've got a number of people who think like that, you've got, again, a hot button issue to say the least. You know, we've talked about this before, and I may have mentioned this exact thing before, so excuse me if I have, but Joe, I know you're not a big fan of The Simpsons. You're hostile towards The Simpsons, is that correct?

I don't think I said I was hostile, man. I mean, I just haven't seen every episode. I can't help that. I can't.

I'll work on it. Well, there's an episode that I always think about. Anytime we talk about the Second Amendment, which makes me think I probably already brought it up before, but anytime we think about the Second Amendment, there's an episode of The Simpsons where Homer gets a gun.

I don't know what it's called, but that's what happens. Homer gets a gun. He joins the local NRA, and they have a meeting, and they're just dumbfounded how careless and reckless he is with a gun, so they kick him out. And, you know, he's using it as a TV remote. He's using his gun to turn out the lights. Like, he's just not a good gun owner by any point, but Lisa's complaining because she doesn't want a gun in the house. That's what Lisa does on The Simpsons.

She complains. Josh, I'm not good at recalling Simpsons episodes off the top of my head, but I'm good at research, and I can tell you this is season nine, episode five. What was it called? The name of the episode is The Cartridge Family. Cartridge.

I like it. After witnessing a riot, Homer decides to buy a gun. Man, that's actually relatively topical to today. That aired in 1997, man. The Simpsons. They're brilliant, man. They're way ahead of their time. Yeah, I know that there's a lot of memes where The Simpsons have essentially predicted things that came to pass.

When you have 17,000 episodes of a show, I guess you cover virtually every scenario that can play out in the future. In this episode, Homer has this, I don't know what the exact quote was because I haven't researched it, but Lisa's complaining about the gun and Homer says, look, if we didn't have this gun in this house, the king of England could come sit on our couch and eat our food or something. I always thought that was funny. I am a gun owner. I think I'm more careful and experienced than Homer is. But yeah, I always go back to that. If we didn't all have guns, the king of England could come in and sit in our house.

The king of England could walk right in here and start pushing you around. That's the quote again. Not good at recall.

Relatively good. Man, you can find any Simpsons quote. People really love The Simpsons, man. The Simpsons are awesome.

But might I digress, Joseph? This case is going to be important because as cases come up through the federal court system, you've got district federal court, you've got different court of appeals. So cases have kind of been all over the place.

In different states that have restrictive, like a restrictive law like New York kind of has, courts have kind of allowed them, not allowed them, and there's no clear vision on the courts, on where they stand. And so this will be good that it gets heard by the court because we'll have a precedent. We'll have a clear decision that other courts can follow.

States will know what they can and can't do. So I think a lot of people are looking forward to seeing how the Supreme Court weighs in on this. And it's kind of hard to predict what the court will do.

Again, we've got a new court. We've got some folks that were nominated by a conservative president. You've got, just like me and Joe, some of these justices are Republicans, some are Democrats, some are more conservative. But gun rights are kind of evenly split. I don't think it's something you can predict along party lines.

I don't know. I feel like there's just no telling what we get from the court on this. Yeah, I have to agree, man. And again, it actually ties in really well with the discussion we had earlier about abortion. And really, anytime you're talking about constitutional rights, you're always going to have that two-part framework where you look at the amendment scope as it's historically understood, and then you look at the government's interest in public safety.

And it's the exact same thing here. And it always comes down to defining that point where the one right kind of stops and where that interest in public safety comes into play. And it's going to be very interesting, just like with the abortion discussion, to see how the court rules, because if nothing else, we are absolutely going to get some kind of further definition on that kind of blurry line as to where the restrictions can kind of go and where the restrictions are going to stop and where that right really takes hold. And Joe, this will be a lot like the case we just talked about with abortion. No matter what the court rules, people will think it's either too strict or too lenient, but at least we'll have some lines drawn.

And I think that at least alleviates confusion. And then some states will still do, like Texas, they pass their abortion law. That abortion law, when challenged properly, I can't imagine is going to pass muster for a lot of reasons.

But Texas still did it. And so once these things get struck down or, you know, we find out that the court, maybe the court thinks we all have a right to carry a concealed handgun, and that's a natural extension of our Second Amendment rights. I can't imagine that's the case. But anyway, it'll just be interesting. There's a lot of legal scholars looking at this, a lot of states, a lot of legislatures. So I am excited. Again, we might have to tailgate this one too, Joseph.

We just tell, let's just tailgate all month, man. You know, like you said, the Supreme Court has ruled that you've got that right to have guns in your home. But we don't have that clear elaboration on how far that right extends.

So very going to be very interesting. Another thing that just like with abortion, you know, we talked about the fact that you're going to have individuals, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has held in the past that, you know, a woman has that constitutional right to an abortion, you've got individuals who are never going to agree with that. And you've also got individuals who are never going to agree with, you know, even what some would say are reasonable limitations to gun ownership. Those people have guns too.

So that's almost a more volatile situation than the situation. The Outlaw Lawyers talking guns rights, Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer. We found out today that Josh feels like he's more responsible than Homer Simpson, a cartoon character. That's awesome when it comes to gun ownership. So always fun to kind of kid a little bit, but a very, very serious topic discussed today on the Outlaw Lawyers. If you've got a legal question pertaining to what's going on in your life, here's a number for you. 800-659-1186.

That's 800-659-1186. You can also email questions to the show. That's questions at the outlawlawyer.com. And fellas, I think we're going to get to some questions next segment. Yeah. Morgan, we've got two listener questions this week. And so our first one that we're going to tackle is we've got someone who has signed a lease for an apartment and they want to break it and they want to, they want some legal advice. So we're going to tackle that one next.

All right. It's all coming up on the Outlaw Lawyers right after this. The Outlaw Lawyer on the air, Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer. They are managing partners at Whitaker and Hamer law firm, 46 combined years experience. And they have offices in Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro and Fuqua, Verina, and soon to be in Gastonia. They're franchising folks.

They're everywhere. If you've got a legal question, 800-659-1186, 800-659-1186. You can also email questions to the program questions at the outlawlawyer.com. And speaking of questions, gentlemen, we have a few, so let's get to them. All right. So our first question, when it came in, it was a little more complicated.

So I kind of simplified it for the, for the radio show and took some details out of it. But the way I ended up phrasing this question for debate today was I signed a lease for one year and I am under contract to buy a house. I want to break my lease.

What can I do? And this is a question we, we get a lot. This is a kind of falls under what we call landlord tenant law. We represent a lot of landlords, but we also end up helping some, some tenants as well.

And so the first thing I always tell people is, I'm sorry to hear that, right? It's good news you're buying a house, but you say you're in the, I'm going to say, I'm gonna make this worst case scenario. So let's say they just signed a lease and then they got this great opportunity. So they went under a contract to buy a house without really thinking about it. And they've got 12 months left on this lease.

They just signed. And so the first thing I tell people is like, well, that's, I got to read your lease, right? So you've got leases that are 80 pages long. You got leases that are three pages long.

You may not have a lease, but that's what we first, we have to figure out what you agree to. Joe, I don't know if you see this one a lot, man. I see it a lot. You know, we talk about when you get out of law school, you start getting those recurring questions from anyone who knows that you're a lawyer. Number one on that list most likely is the I've got a speeding ticket.

Can you help me? That's, that's number one. I got to say number two or number one B would, would probably be this, the question of, Hey, I got this lease, or I know someone who's got a lease. Can they get out of it? And, and people always will tell you that they're like, Hey, I got a lease. Can they, can I get out of it? And, and like you said, man, step one is I got to read the lease.

I got to see what it says. You know, at least there are some, some standardized aspects to leases. There are some standardized forms where some leases can look similar, but a lease is a contract and a lease is going to be unique depending on how that contract is drafted.

They can look completely different with completely different terms. And so there are some statutory protections that tenants are going to have. There's some things you can't really contract away. Um, but at the end of the day, the lease, it's going to be a contract. It's going to dictate your two parties who have agreed to be bound by those terms. And so we're going to have to look at the lease before we can advise about really anything that that lease dictates. Yeah. So going forward, when we talk about this question, it's going to be kind of general.

What do we, what do we see the most often? So I'm going to assume, uh, there is a lease. I'm going to assume it's, it's a formal arrangement. You know, it's a management company. It's it's, these are professionally managed. We'll call them apartments.

And, and, and in my mind, they're at NC State. So this is an NC State student in my mind, and they've rented an apartment and we've got a lease and it's a big one. It's a 50 pager, lots of addendums. Typically in that situation, you've already agreed to how this is going to play out. You know, if you want to break the lease, usually there's going to be a couple of paragraphs in there.

There's going to be a penalty. Um, and there's going to be, uh, basically you're going to pay something, uh, just as a sheer penalty for, for breaking the lease. And then on top of that, you're still liable until you're released by your landlord.

You're liable for the rest of the year. Um, your landlord has some legal responsibilities, uh, where they have to try and, and, and re-let it. And they'll want to, usually, you know, a landlord usually wants to make sure someone's in there. Um, so they have to use reasonable best efforts to release or re-let the property. But until they do that, until they find someone that's acceptable to them, um, to, to kind of step in your place and release the property, uh, you're on the hook and that's, you know, it's a contract. It is a contract, Josh. And as, as many times as I've gotten this question, I've had to unfortunately deliver the news to the people asking the question that. In so many words, you're, you're kind of screwed here.

There's, there's really not a ton that you can do. Leases are generally contracts. They're generally drafted. You know, even if they're not drafted by an attorney, there's anyone with, with any kind of common sense that is in the position to be a landlord is generally going to have some provision detailing, you know, what happens when you terminate or you break that lease. And, and that's never going to be favorable to the tenant that's attempting to break that lease. You are always going to have to pay something. There's always going to be some penalty.

And the answer to what that penalty is going to be, it's really going to depend based on the language of the contract, how it's drafted. Like you said, Josh, that you do have in residential contracts, you know, you've got that duty to mitigate where the landlord has to try to re-let the property. But, um, depending on the market, depending on several factors, if, if they're unable to do so, you know, your damages could be fairly substantial. You know, it all depends just like we generally say a lot of the time.

It really does all depend. It's going to be dictated by that lease. But it's not a great situation to be in if you are the tenant and you're trying to get out, um, you know, unless of course you've got some kind of factor working in your favor. You've got a landlord that's done something of their own that you can use as kind of a bargaining chip if they've, if they've, you know, violated the law or done something on their part. But without that, if you've got a landlord that has no fault whatsoever, you're, you're going to have a problem and you're going to be looking at a situation where you're probably going to be paying something. Yeah.

So the, the question, the, the person who asked this question, it was bad timing. So here, you know, we're going to assume the landlord hasn't done anything wrong. They just got a good deal on a house and went under contract. And so they're obligated, right? So they've obligated themselves under a contract to buy a house and that's, you know, independent of whether or not they get out of their lease. So they very well may be liable for their lease for a while and rent. And also it'd be liable to the seller to go ahead and complete this home purchase and have that bad situation where you have some rent due and a mortgage due. That's never, that's never nice. That's never a good situation.

So yeah, there you go. If you're looking at buying a house and you've got a lease, you're going to need to, my professional advice to you, figure out the lease situation before you get under contract on the property. Because, you know, the fact that you're buying a house, you know, some people may think, Hey, I'm buying a house. I've got this contract.

I'm good. And that's not the case. Your agreement as to you and that landlord still exists and they are absolutely going to hold you to it. And you are going to be potentially getting sued. It's amazing to me, you know, I signed my first lease. I got an apartment when I was at NC State, right? So I was 17, 18 and signed, I guess I was 18 to sign a lease on my own. But, uh, you know, there's, I don't know that I read back then at 18 year old Josh, I'm pretty sure I didn't read that lease at all and just signed whatever they put in front of me. And thankfully everything worked out the way it was the way I thought it would. But you know, these are complicated legal contracts and I doubt many people give them a second thought when they, when they sign them.

Yeah. You know, they are complicated. Like you said, you can have 50 pagers and so I'm not going to sit here. It's not practical to encourage you to go through and read every single line and try to understand every single detail and nuance. But what I would encourage you to do is you definitely want to familiarize yourself with a few key points. You know, you're going to want to familiarize yourself as far as any kind of penalties, any kind of monetary fees that are going to be due to make sure you don't have any issues there, any kind of due dates. And then if anything else that you highlight, you want to look at, you know, how you terminate, how you get out of this lease. Um, because even if you're not trying to break the lease early, you want to know the procedure at the end of the process to make sure that you are terminating it properly and that you're not going to have any kind of issues with liability at the natural expiration of the lease term. And a lot of these leases, you know, you, you, you, whether or not you can have pets has decided upfront and that's part of it. So if you don't have a pet and you want to later get a pet, there's probably a process.

You probably just can't have a roommate move in with you without some sort of approval as to who the occupants of the, of the apartment are going to be or the, even a house or what have you. So even though your circumstances may change in the next, let's say you sign it for a year, you've agreed to upfront how these things are going to be handled. So, you know, those are always something to be aware of, at least on the front end, or at least to ask, you know, most of these are fairly standard, but you, you're, you're signing for a year.

So you're in it for, for a little bit. The Outlaw lawyers, Josh Whitaker, Joe Hamer, Whitaker and Hamer law firm. They are the managing partners, 46 combined years experience.

Again, offices in Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro, and Fuquay-Varina, and soon to be in Gastonia. And we talk real estate, closings, estate planning, personal injury, criminal and traffic, family law. And as you just heard, you know, a lease, I mean, we've all signed a lease at some point in our lives and it is thick and there's a lot of verbiage there. And you've got to adhere to it.

And certainly breaking a lease can be, well, it can be expensive. So you got to keep an eye on it. So if you've got any legal questions that pertain to you, you can leave a message at 800-659-1186. An attorney will be in touch with you. You can also email questions to the show, questions at theoutlawlawyer.com. We've got more questions. What's coming up on the other side, guys? Well, our next question, Morgan, is I get it a lot of different ways, but I have simplified it into one legal question.

Do you have to open up an estate when someone dies? That's what we're going to talk about. The Outlaw Lawyers. Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer. Whitaker and Hamer Law Firm. They're the managing partners there. 46 combined years experience. And again, offices in Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro and Fuquay-Veranda.

Soon to be in Gastonia. If you've got a legal question pertaining to what's going on in your life and you need an answer, here's the number. 800-659-1186. Leave your contact information and a brief description of what's going on. An attorney will be back in touch with you. You can also email questions to questions at theoutlawlawyer.com. I'm Morgan Patrick, consumer advocate, and I kind of referee these two each and every week here on the Outlaw Lawyers. And guys, I love the question and answer portion of the program, and you've got another one.

Yeah, Morgan. This question we get every day in a number of different ways. And like I said before the break, I've consolidated it down into one simple question, but we get this basic question. Do I need to open up an estate for someone who has passed? So it can be a spouse or a mom, a child, unfortunately, but we get that question a lot.

You know, they have passed, and legalese, we call that a decedent, someone who's passed away, and they're coming to us saying, hey, what do I need to do next? And so I see that a lot. That's a lot of consults that I sit down with folks.

Joe, I know you see that one too. Yeah, it's something you see frequently. You know, we do a lot of real estate transactional.

We do a little bit of everything here. But one of those things that we definitely see a lot of is the estate administration side of things. So just simply put to the question of do you have to open up an estate when someone dies, I think the short answer to that is no. But again, it always depends. It's going to depend on that individual. It's going to depend on what they died owning. And it can kind of end up being somewhat of a complicated question, depending on the complexity of that individual's estate as it stands and what they had in place as far as their estate plan goes.

Yeah, it sounds kind of callous the way that we're going to look at it. But basically, if you pass away and you don't own anything, right, if you pass away, and I saw a standup comedian, that's the goal, right? No matter how much money you make, no matter what you own, the goal is to use it all up so that you have zero dollars when you pass away. But if that happens, if you don't have anything, you certainly don't need to open up an estate. It'd be a waste of time and energy and money.

But that's what we do when people show up. We're like, all right, well, what kind of assets do we have? And we talk about probate assets versus non-probate assets. Did you own real property? Did you have life insurance? Do you have investment accounts?

Do you have normal accounts? What kind of vehicles did you own? What kind of debt did we have?

And depending on those answers, there's a bunch of different directions to go in. The average person that we see had a house, had some vehicles, had some investments, that kind of thing. And those folks, I mean, usually you're probably going to open up some kind of estate, but there's all different ways. Real property in North Carolina kind of drives that train. And Joe, there's all kinds of ways you can own real property where you might be able to avoid probate. Yeah.

You said it, Josh. There's a lot of ways that you can avoid probate. And there's a lot of things and mechanisms by which people, especially people who have put some thought into their estate plan and have consulted with an attorney, there's a lot of things they can do to avoid that probate process. And I'd say that's arguably going to be the goal for everyone is to, as much as you can, avoid that probate process to make things as easy on your loved ones that you leave behind as humanly possible. And the best way to do that is to have a well put together, professionally reviewed and prepared estate plan. So like you said, if you die owning real estate in the state of North Carolina, if you purchased that real estate and you took title with a spouse, or if you took title with just any individual and you were what we call a joint tenant with a right of survivorship, that right of survivorship is going to pass that property outside of any probate process to the other named individual that you were a co-owner with. So again, the question depends, and we're going to have to ask you a lot of questions to understand and to know whether that estate is going to be necessary for you. But I think really the lesson at the root of everything is really going to be to make sure that you have got your estate plan in order, that you've consulted with an attorney, that it's up to date. We talked a lot about the pitfalls and the horror stories that can occur if you have an estate that has not been properly planned and there's been changes since it was originally established. So it's something, again, we never like to think about it. It's morbid. It's not the best thing to think about, but it's extremely important that you make sure that those things are in order sooner rather than later.

That's kind of the reverse side of this question. So this question is coming in as someone has passed away. Do I need to probate a will?

Do I need a state? Do I need to administer an estate for that person? And kind of the reverse of it, a lot of our answers are going to depend on what kind of estate plan, if any, that person had. And so that's always, when you sit down with us to do estate planning, we'll talk about trust, we'll talk about you can own this property as joint tenants with right of survivorship. There's all these ways to plan out.

I mean, it kind of sounds, you plan out your life, right? So if you've got a spouse, if you're married and we're talking to you, we try to plan it so that when you pass away, your spouse really doesn't have to be inconvenienced with probate. And their life, at least financially, they'll hopefully be mourning that you're gone.

And that's not easy, but the rest of it will be easy. They won't have to deal with getting assets titled over or going and sitting down with the clerk or at the courthouse or an attorney. So if you've planned your estate out properly, when you pass away, everything should pretty easily transfer on over to your surviving spouse or the next generation or whoever you're looking out for. If you don't, then that's when we end up sitting down and talking about, all right, well, we're going to have to open up an estate. We're going to have to give notice in the newspaper.

Let's see who you owe money to. What assets do we need to sell to get this thing closed out? So there's a lot you can avoid by having a good sound estate plan. You said it, Josh, hopefully the people are mourning. Hopefully they're not setting up and doing the tailgate at your death and celebrating you passing away. But as an attorney who does a lot of transactional real estate, I have a strong appreciation for a well-planned estate.

Because in the absence of a well-planned estate, man, it can be a true nightmare for somebody on the back end that's either cleaning things up or trying to dispose of your property. And it can be a nightmare for your loved ones that you leave behind because they're the ones that are going to have to deal with this and they're the ones that are going to have to be doing the legwork, going through the additional, jumping through the hoops. And they've already got a lot on them.

They've already got a lot of stress on them. So again, cannot encourage you enough. Make sure that you've got your estate plan in order. Make sure it's been reviewed. You've heard how to contact us. We'd love to help you with that. But even if not us, I can't encourage you enough to go and talk to a professional about these things before you get to the point where you need it.

You want to do it before you need it because when you need it, you're dead. Perfect opportunity to throw out this phone number if you've got questions about estate planning. 800-659-1186.

That's 800-659-1186. You can also email your questions to the show, questions at theoutlawlawyer.com. You can always kick the tires at the website, theoutlawlawyer.com. The podcast will be available there. But if you've got a legal question, the fellows, Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer, managing partners at Whitaker and Hamer Law Firm, can answer those for you. And they've got offices in Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro, and Fuquay-Varina, and soon to be in Gastonia. Well, another episode of The Outlaw Lawyers is in the books.

Guys, final words? Get your estate plan done. Every year, you need to look at your estate plan just like you need to look at your insurance, like you need to meet with your CPA. You need to be on top of it. Get on top of it. Make sure your estate plan's done.

Also, don't die. We want you to keep listening to the show. Outlaw lawyers hosted by an attorney licensed to practice law in North Carolina. Some of the guests appearing on the show may be licensed North Carolina attorneys. Discussion of the show is meant to be general in nature and in no way should the discussion be interpreted as legal advice. Legal advice can only be rendered once an attorney, licensed in the state in which you live, had the opportunity to discuss the facts of your case with you. The attorneys appearing on the show are speaking in generalities about the law in North Carolina and how these laws affect the average North Carolinian. If you have any questions about the content of the show, contact us directly.