This is Bloomberg Law with June Grao

from Bloomberg Radio.

party.

Tupac Shakur is a cultural icon

considered one of the most influential

and versatile rappers of all time

despite dying at the age of 25 in a

driveby shooting in Las Vegas in 1996.

Tubac is gunned down in a drive by

shooting from a white Cadillac in an act

of revenge. His murder has been one of

the biggest unsolved cases of our time.

And now, three decades later, Dwayne Kei

D. Davis is on trial for orchestrating

Shakur's murder. Prosecutor Bonu Pal

described Davis as the mastermind behind

the shooting. Dwayne Davis did not pull

the trigger, but what he did do was plan

the retaliation

for the beating of his nephew.

You will learn that Dwayne Davis got the

gun. You will learn that he got into a

white Cadillac.

You will learn when the opportunity

presented itself for retribution,

Dwayne Davis made sure that the shooters

were armed and ready to execute their

arrest.

>> Perhaps the strongest evidence in the

prosecution's case is Davis's own words.

For years, the former gang leader

actually boasted about his involvement

in the shooting, laying out the details

in multiple interviews with police and

the FBI and then in a memoir in 2019.

Prosecutors played Davis's confession

from an interview with LAPD in 2008

where he describes his car pulling

alongside Shakur's car before the

shooting.

>> I thought he was going to pull on my

side. You know that's my little nephew

on the look out for him, you know, and

he he pulled on on his side.

>> So you were going to you were fitting a

blast if you had to or you were just

>> Yeah. If we would have been on my side,

I would have blasted.

>> Okay. So you hand the gun to the back

seat.

>> Yeah.

>> You can hear Lane.

>> I gave it to Dre and Dre was like, "No,

no." And Lane like

to

>> How many rounds you say he shot in the

Tupac in the car if he had about six or

seven?

>> Six. But in an unusual posture, the

defense attorney, Michael Sanfit, told

the jurors that his client was not to be

believed.

>> Just look at the actual facts. What

facts do you have to support any of what

KPD said in any of his interviews or in

the book?

>> There's one person who thinks Davis will

have a hard time convincing the jury,

and that's Suge Knight, who was in the

car with Tupac. as he told ABC News in

an interview from prison.

>> Everything he said and talked about, he

already told on himself. So, what are

you going to do? Erased all the

recordings of the interviews he did.

>> The 63-year-old Davis faces life in

prison if he's convicted of the murder.

My guest is former federal prosecutor

Nema Romani, president and co-founder of

West Coast Trial Lawyers. Nema, start

with the challenges of trying this

30-year-old case where most of the

people who were involved are no longer

alive.

>> It's very difficult to prosecute a case

30 years later, especially because

everyone who is in Ke's vehicle is dead.

Many of them for gang related reasons.

Really the only precipient witness that

we know so far is Sug Knight, who of

course was driving Tupac's vehicle, but

I think it's unlikely that he's going to

testify in this case and identify either

the shooter or even put Davis in the

vehicle. The other issue is Tupac

himself, the testimony that came out on

the first day of trial was that he

refused to snitch and identify the

shooter, saying that he would take care

of it himself. Of course, he succumbed

to his injuries at the hospital and was

unable to do so.

>> Does it seem like the best evidence the

prosecution has is Kei D's own words

because he bragged about being involved

in the killing many times over the years

and wrote a memoir to that effect.

>> I've never covered a case like this

that's based almost entirely on the

defense's own words. The opening

statements were surreal. You have the

prosecution calling Davis a criminal

mastermind, the shot caller of this

gang. And then you have the defense on

the other hand trying to undermine their

client's own credibility. They said he

was full of crap. They said this was all

BS. They essentially were arguing that

he's a fool who was bragging to make

himself seem more important, gain street

cred in the gang culture, and to sell

books. I've never seen anything like it.

And at this point, the defense is

claiming that there's no evidence that

Davis was even in Las Vegas that night.

>> This was a really important point. So

Davis has said that he wasn't even in

Vegas in interviews he's done from jail

with local media outlets in Vegas. But

during opening statements, the defense

said that Davis lied about being

ringside or close to it in the Mike

Tyson fight. He wasn't even there. He

wasn't at the fight. He wasn't in the

city, which would be absolutely

devastating to the prosecution's case if

that's true. They need witnesses to at

least put him in Vegas and Clark County,

otherwise they're going to have

significant problems.

>> He did many interviews over the years,

admitting his role in the shooting with

the FBI, with Las Vegas police, with

LAPD.

Are the jurors going to be asking with

all these confessions, why did it take

until 2023 to arrest him?

>> That's one of the best arguments the

defense has. They're arguing that even

LAPD, even the FBI, they didn't believe

Davis. That's why they didn't charge

him. And you're right, we're talking

about going back to I think 1997 was his

first interview with LAPD after Biggie

Smalls was killed outside the Peterson

Auto Museum in Los Angeles. Of course,

there's the infamous 2008 interview with

the federal task force that became the

issue of much litigation. He was given

immunity. The prosecution argued that it

was just use immunity. It didn't bind

other jurisdictions, including Nevada.

This was litigated all the way to the

Nevada Supreme Court, where the defense

argued that it was transactional

immunity. He couldn't be prosecuted at

all. Ultimately, the judge agreed with

the prosecution that one jurisdiction

cannot contractually bind another. And I

think that 2008 interview as well as the

2019 memoir, I think those are the most

damning pieces of evidence for Davis and

the defense.

>> What do you think about the defense

saying, "Oh, he was bragging and in

interviews Davis has said, you know, he

was trying to make some money off this."

>> Certainly possible. Well, the

prosecution is going to need to

corroborate these admissions or

confessions with some independent

evidence. It's going to be very hard

when you have the defendant now arguing

that he was trying to sell books and

seem more important. And ultimately, I

think at a minimum, they got to put him

in the vehicle. And the question is, do

they have the witnesses to do so? There

are witnesses are going to testify about

this white Cadillac that pulled up next

to a BMW. But the challenge and like you

said is all the recipient witnesses to

the shooting, they're all dead. They

can't testify. And of course, under the

rules of hearsay and the confrontation

clause and the constitution, an accused

has the right to cross-examine his

accuser.

>> Also, they don't have the gun. They

don't have the car. I don't know if they

have any physical evidence at all.

>> That's the concern here. Normally, in a

murder case, you're going to have

ballistics, you're going to have DNA,

you're going to have fingerprints. We

don't have any of that cellside

evidence. So, you're relying on these

admissions. So, obviously, there's a

potential motive. I think we're going to

hear a lot of testimony about the beef

between these gangs. One other

interesting wrinkle is that that may be

helpful for the defense is that Davis

previously said that Shan Combmes

offered him a million dollars to kill

Tupac. Now, of course, Combmes is

denying that, and Combmes isn't going to

come anywhere near this trial. Like Suge

Knight, he has his own legal problems.

But if that statement is also untrue, it

sort of leads to the conclusion that

this is all just a complete fabrication

by someone that had nothing to do with

it. The more elaborate the lies, and

Nome's part being one of them, the

better it is for the defense. Again,

it's really bizarre that they're just

trying to undermine their own client's

credibility. I've never seen anything

like this in any case. So, that's why

that independent corroborating evidence

is going to be critical for the state.

>> The defense attorney is also pointing to

missing documents. He called Las Vegas

police incompetent and said their work

was biased and sloppy and even accused

the LAPD of being corrupt. I mean, those

are all arguments we've heard from

defense attorneys many, many times.

>> What's the challenge when you have these

types of cases? Because you I live and

work in Los Angeles and I was here in

the '9s and obviously this is not a Los

Angeles case, but there's a perception

or there was that LAPD was corrupt

during that time. Rampart, Rodney King,

the failure to ever arrest anyone for

the Tupac or Biggie murders. There are a

lot of people who believe that law

enforcement were complicit. It was bad

boy. So, the challenge is when you have

a 30-year-old case, I'm not saying

everyone is of age to remember when

Tupac was killed, but some of these

jurors have very strong preconceived

notions as to who was responsible for

Tupac's death. That becomes a challenge.

And there are other cases as well where

this has been an issue. I think a recent

example, not a murder case, but the fire

case here in Los Angeles where I live,

Jonathan Render Connect, he was charged

for arson. But that was after many, many

months when people believe that the LA

fire department, the LA Department of

Water and Power, Mayor Karen Bass,

Mother Nature, they're all responsible

for the devastating Malibu and Palisades

fire. Then the US attorney's office

charges this arsonist and ultimately the

jury hung 102 in favor of a quiddle. and

one of the jurors that spoke out and

said, "No, this wasn't his fault. He's

being scapegoed." So, I think the

defense has an argument here that it was

law enforcement that failed to do their

job. And by the way, this is something

that defense lawyers argue in almost

every case, right? A poor, sloppy

investigation. And the fact that it took

30 years to bring any criminal charges

against one of or actually who I believe

is the greatest rapper of all time being

murdered does play into that argument.

Do you think there's a chance that the

defendant might take the stand? Because

does the jury believe what he's been

saying over 30 years or do they believe

what he's saying now?

>> I think if I'm the defense, I do not

under any circumstances put Davis on the

stand. Here's someone that is going to

be completely destroyed on

cross-examination. Maybe you want him to

be destroyed because you want him to

just look so incompetent. You want him

to be a bumbling fool. So maybe it would

be a mad genius move, but it's very very

risky for this type of defendant. He's

obviously opened his mouth many, many

times when he should not have. Even when

he was in jail, he was talking to

reporters, right? It is risky. And if I

were the defense here, I would kind of

stick with what I got, which is really

reasonable doubt because the prosecution

is at a disadvantage because so much

time has passed and most of the

witnesses are dead.

>> Lot more to come. The trials expected to

last into September. Thanks for those

insights, Nema. That's Nema Romani,

president of West Coast Trial Lawyers.

Coming up next, why has DC US Attorney

Janine Piro convened a special grand

jury? I'm June Grao and you're listening

to Bloomberg.

President Trump made it very clear that

he was not happy with DC US attorney

Janine Piro about three weeks ago. I was

disappointed with Janine Piro. Really

disappointed with Janine Piro. She uh

she folded like an umbrella.

>> That disappointment was the result of

Piro dropping felony charges against a

former Olympian for allegedly

vandalizing the reflecting pool. But

there have been other high-profile

failures for Piro's office.

>> Our laws are clear. You can refuse

illegal orders.

>> You can refuse illegal orders. You must

refuse illegal orders.

>> A grand jury refusing to indict six

Democratic lawmakers who released a

video advising service members they must

refuse to follow illegal orders.

>> Jerome Powell today is now bathed in

immunity preventing my office from

investigating the Federal Reserve. A

federal judge quashing grand jury

subpoenas for former Fed Reserve Chair

Jerome Powell, blasting the DC US

attorney's office for producing

essentially zero evidence to suspect

Powell of a crime.

>> And then he took a Subway sandwich about

this big and took it and threw it at the

officer. He thought it was funny. Well,

he doesn't think it's funny today cuz we

charge him with a felony, assault on a

police officer. But again, a grand jury

refused to indict the man accused of

throwing a Subway sandwich at an ICE

officer of a felony, and a trial jury

acquitted him of even the lowered

misdemeanor charges. In light of these

very public failures, the news first

reported by the Washington Post that

Piro has convened a rare special grand

jury has raised concerns about her

intentions.

Joining me is Barbara McUade, a

professor at the University of Michigan

Law School and the former US attorney

for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Barb, how unusual is it for a US

attorney's office to convene a special

grand jury? In many districts, it's not

unusual at all. In fact, in districts

with a population of more than 4 million

people, it's mandatory that there be a

special grand jury. The District of

Columbia has a population below 4

million. And although it conducts

long-term investigations, which is the

purpose of a special grand jury, it's

rarely done in DC. So, this is unusual,

which is why I think it has caught the

attention of many observers.

>> Tell us about the difference between a

regular grand jury and a special grand

jury.

>> In my former district, for example, the

Eastern District of Michigan, we always

had a special grand jury that was

ongoing. So, a regular grand jury sits

for 6 months. So they hear short cases,

a one-count bank robbery, a one-count

felony in possession case where the

evidence can be presented all in one

sitting or maybe over just a couple of

weeks and the grand jury sort of heard

all they need to hear and is ready to

make a decision to either return or

decline to return an indictment. A

special grand jury sits for 18 months

and so that allows them to participate

in longerterm investigations. They were

originally created for organized crime

investigations. So, if you're

investigating a mob case, it might be

that you need to first use the grand

jury to obtain lots of documents. Once

you get those, maybe you need to bring

in a witness or a cooperating witness

and compel them to testify. And based on

the information you get there, one step

leads to another. And it can take many,

many months to put together one of those

cases. It can also be extended to up to

36 months for longer cases. And since

they began in the late 1960s, they've

now been expanded to public corruption

cases, national security cases, any case

that might take longer than 6 months to

complete. That's the purpose of them in

other districts.

>> Suppose they want to investigate Jerome

Powell again since those investigative

subpoenas were quashed. Would that be

enough to convene a special grand jury?

Or does it have to be more than that?

let's say a series of cases

investigating public officials,

something bigger than just the

investigation of one person. It usually

is. So, I don't know. I think one of the

reasons people have pointed to Jerome

Powell is because the attorney assigned

to the case is Steven Vandervelden and

he is someone who was assigned to the

Jerome Powell investigation. He was also

assigned to the case that attempted to

indict the six members of Congress for

participating in a video where they

simply restated accurately the law of

the duty of military members to refuse

an illegal order. And so I think because

of his role, he also spent 34 years in

the Westchester County District

Attorney's Office working for in part

Janine Piro. So she brought him on

board. and she has spoken very highly of

his skills as a prosecutor, an

investigator, and seems to be a real

pure loyalist. And so I think that's

another reason that people are concerned

about this. And so it seems like what

you would convene this for would be a

larger longerterm investigation. They're

sometimes referred to by prosecutors as

enterprise investigations because you

might be looking at organized criminal

activity with more than just one

participant. If you thought you could

indict a case in 6 months on just a

single individual with a single count or

one scheme, it probably would be

unnecessary to convene a special grand

jury. So, this strikes me as a larger

enterprise investigation most likely.

You know, we've been reading about what

do they call it? The grand conspiracy

investigation that's occurring in

Florida. It would seem this would be the

kind of thing you might expect a special

grand jury to be convened for. Janine

Piro's office hasn't come close to

delivering on what the president wants.

She came close to being fired. Could she

be reinvestigating some of the fail

cases, for example, against the six

Democratic lawmakers over that video?

It's quite possible. You know, we really

don't know what this is. By their

nature, grand juries are secret and for

good reason. The idea is you don't want

to compromise an investigation by

announcing to the world that you're

investigating. It could cause people to

destroy documents or tamper with

witnesses or flee or otherwise

compromise an investigation and even

harm the reputation of the person under

investigation if it should turn out that

no charges are ever filed. So, we may

not know, but often times hints spill

out because witnesses and their lawyers

start talking to the press. They want to

be able to sort of tell their side of

the story in the court of public

opinion. And so, for that reason,

sometimes we see these leaks. Sometimes

people suspect that it's members of the

grand jury or the court or the

prosecutors who are leaking. In my

experience, it's usually the lawyer for

someone who's been called before the

grand jury because they want to make it

clear that they're a witness and not a

target of the grand jury and be the

first to kind of tell their story. So,

we don't know. It is possible that

they're redoing some of these prior

cases. Could be something completely

different. Could be preparing for some

criminal investigation relating to the

upcoming elections. I don't know. The

timing of it though also concerns people

because it comes right after Todd Blanch

is confirmed and right after Janine Piro

falls into disfavor for dismissing the

case against David Hearn in the

reflecting pool case. So I think you

know some see it as an effort to you

know make good and please the president.

But of course we really don't know

exactly what's going on there. Another

concern some people have is because the

special grand jury can issue a report at

the end of the investigation

even if the prosecutors don't bring

charges against anyone in particular. So

there could be a report out there on you

even though there wasn't enough evidence

to bring charges against you and even

though you didn't have a chance to

refute the charges at trial.

>> Yes. And I think that is concerning as

well. You know, if you're acting in good

faith, most often grand juries do not

issue a report, but they could. They

could issue something similar to what

Robert Mueller did at the conclusion of

his investigation. Usually, it's written

by the prosecutor who is leading it, in

this case, Steven Vanderved, to discuss

what they found, even if it doesn't

result in charges. So, one could

imagine, this would be, in my opinion,

an abuse of the process. But one could

imagine an effort to bring some

witnesses to testify based on some

conspiracy theory. the grand jury

ultimately declines to issue any

charges, but a report gets issued that

does dirty up somebody politically. So,

that would be another concern about an

abuse here. But there's this

long-standing presumption of regularity

when it comes to the Justice Department

that we assume good faith. We assume

they are using their tools

appropriately. But of course, many

judges have found just the opposite in

this administration. So, I think that's

why people are concerned and prosecutors

only have to show that there's a

prepoundonderance of evidence of

wrongdoing. So, it's a really low

standard to bring out one of these grand

jury reports.

>> Yes, a report would really just be, you

know, they were, as I said, they were

formed for the purpose of organized

crime. And I think the idea was that

even if you couldn't get an indictment

against everybody or maybe you did, you

could give the district sort of a state

of the district, where you stand on

organized crime so that the public could

be educated about something that was

happening in the shadows. And I'm not

sure I've ever seen one of these things,

but they are authorized to do it. And so

I suppose some of the concern is that

even if there is insufficient evidence

to bring a case, there could be this

effort to dirty people up. Remember Ed

Martin? He was somebody who was at one

time the interim US attorney in the

District of Columbia. He then got

appointed to be the head of the

weaponization task force and the head of

the office of the pardon attorney. I

think he's still there as the pardon

attorney, but he's become very quiet in

recent days after his efforts to indict

Leticia James that seemed to fall apart.

He said something really interesting

when he first took on those roles, which

was, "We're going to name and shame

people even if we don't have the

evidence to convict them because that's

what the public cares about." That is a

distortion of the Justice Department's

mission, which is to bring cases only if

you believe the evidence is sufficient

to obtain and support a conviction on

appeal. And so the idea that you would

just use it for the purpose of naming

and shaming seems like a violation of

DOJ's policy guidelines, the principles

of federal prosecution to avoid engaging

in partisan politics. So I worry a

little bit about that aspect of this

this ability to issue a report. Is there

any protection in the fact that a judge

has to decide that there's a

prepoundonderance of evidence of

wrongdoing before signing off on the

issuance of a report from the grand

jury? Yes, I think that is a check. But

of course, a propoundonderance of the

evidence is much less than the standard

that prosecutors would use to bring an

indictment. Even though the grand jury

may bring an indictment based only on

probable cause, which is a level

actually below preponderance of the

evidence, preponderance of the evidence

is kind of 51%. Probable cause doesn't

have a number attached to it, but it

just means reasonable grounds to believe

that a crime has been committed by this

person. And so it's a lowish standard,

but the principles of criminal

prosecution say that a prosecutor should

only seek an indictment if they believe

they can prove the case beyond a

reasonable doubt. that very highest

standard. And so the judge will apply

the law. They're not applying their

opinion about whether they think this is

a good thing or a bad thing. But if

there's a proponent of the evidence, 51%

even if it could never be proved beyond

a reasonable doubt, means that that

could become public information. And so

as a former prosecutor, I worry about

that a little bit. Prosecutors are

trained to be very circumspect with

filing charges and to bring them only if

they believe that the case can be proved

beyond a reasonable doubt because of the

recognition of the awesome power of a

prosecutor to ruin someone's life, not

only to take away their liberty, but to

take away their reputation. And I think

a report could do just that without the

other part of having evidence beyond a

reasonable doubt.

>> It seems like there's a lot to be

concerned about. Thanks so much for

joining me, Barb. That's Professor

Barbara McUade of the University of

Michigan Law School. Her new book is

called The Fix: Saving America from the

Corruption of a Mobstyle Government. The

Trump administration is not complying

with all court orders. And that's

according to federal judges. It was less

than three weeks into President Trump's

second term that federal judges like

Washington State's John Kunau took the

president to task for ignoring the rule

of law.

>> It has become ever more apparent that to

our president, the rule of law is but an

impediment to his policy goals. More

high-profile examples followed, like the

administration ignoring the order of the

DC chief federal judge to turn around

two planes carrying Venezuelan migrants

to prison in El Salvador in March of

2025.

Judges are fielding more requests to

force the administration to comply with

their rulings against the federal

government than in any other prior

administration,

including the first Trump

administration. A new study by Bloomberg

Law shows that judges have found the

administration has not complied with

their orders regarding motions to

enforce preliminary injunctions in more

than half of the 25 cases identified.

Bloomberg Law reporter Suzanne Manac

crunched the numbers. So Suzanne,

ordinarily a judge issues an order and

the parties either comply or appeal the

order, but tell us what but tell us

what's been happening with orders issued

against the federal government during

the Trump administration.

>> We've seen some recent examples where

the Trump administration has been at

least accused of and in some cases found

of not fully complying with these court

orders. We looked at promotions to

enforce preliminary injunctions, but I

think it's an interesting example to

look at because it shows a compliance

issue really early in a case. A

preliminary injunction would come down

pretty soon after a lawsuit showing that

the challenger was likely to win its

case. And so then we're seeing the

government, you know, immediately

potentially not following that order. I

think it's an interesting place to look.

I've tracked two dozen examples at least

of times when the Trump administration

has been accused of not fully complying

with initial preliminary injunction

orders. What kind of cases are we

talking about?

>> All different types of cases against the

government. We've seen them in big cases

over USAD funding cuts, the dismantling

of international broadcaster Voice of

America, other big cases across the

country where there were early

preliminary injunction orders granted

against the administration telling them

to stop doing something. And then we saw

the challengers come back into court and

claimed the administration wasn't fully

following that order. And in 14 of those

25 instances, the judge agreed either

fully or partially. In a few other

cases, it was either denied, sometimes

it was resolved otherwise or even mooded

sometimes as the case just progressed

past that stage. But 14 out of 25 was

still somewhat of a striking number for

comparison. Under the Biden

administration, there were only two

motions to enforce preliminary

injunctions filed against the

government, and one of them was

partially granted in a Medicaid involved

case. And during the first Trump

administration, we saw 11 motions to

enforce preliminary injunctions. About

half of those partially or fully

granted. So somewhat of a similar

statistic, but I mean that was 11 over 4

years. We're looking at 25 in a year and

a half. So I think we can expect

potentially this number to grow as the

number of court challenges grow. And as

we see the administration kind of see

what, you know, they're able to do with

these court orders. There was a scathing

opinion by a Reagan appointee in the

Voice of America case. And in another

case, a senior DC federal judge said

that the defense department's actions

flout the court's explicit directives.

So these federal judges are not beating

around the bush. How upset are the

judges about this failure to comply with

their explicit orders?

>> In some cases, pretty upset. And

obviously when it comes to judges,

sometimes they're upset and they still

write a pretty boring opinion. Um, so

it's hard to always know, but yes, as

you mentioned in a couple of examples,

the judges did in fact let us know that

they weren't happy with the government's

conduct. In that one instance you

mentioned, Judge Lambert, a Reagan

appointee in DC when he was handling the

Voice of America case, said that he

thought the government was quote in

violation of even the most meager

reading end quote of his court order. So

definitely not pleased. We've also seen

plenty of orders where the judge is kind

of very matterof factly is like, I don't

see the government as having fully

complied with this order. These are

inconsistent. You know, you need to do

this differently if you want to be in

compliance with my order.

>> A few judges wanted to take things

further or did take things further. So,

in Minnesota, you had the chief judge

finding that ICE had violated nearly 100

court orders. And then there was another

federal judge in Minnesota who held a

government lawyer in civil contempt,

although that didn't last very long.

>> Yes. In this story, I was tracking

motions to enforce preliminary

injunctions, but there have been a lot

of different types of motions filed to

force compliance with court orders

against this administration. And in that

one example you mentioned, we saw a

Minnesota federal judge actually held a

government lawyer briefly in civil

contempt of court for not correctly

facilitating the release of a detained

immigrant. he was released in the wrong

state without his property and it came

out that the lawyer hadn't forwarded the

court's order to ICE on time. Um so

there was just a full breakdown in

communication. The lawyer actually, you

know, did apologize and said she's been

really overwhelmed, but the judge had

ordered essentially a financial penalty

for every day that the detained

immigrant, you know, was not with his

property. And the government did remedy

it very quickly. I I don't believe the

government lawyer who was representing

ICE did actually end up having to pay

anything personally, but it was a pretty

significant sanction to see against the

government. So in these cases, the

government is giving instructions about

what the court said and what the agency

is supposed to do. Do you know is it a

lot of times that the government lawyers

are screwing up or that the agency is

just not complying?

>> I think it's a mix. In the case I just

mentioned in Minnesota, we've seen the

government actually say like, "Look, we

can't always be responsible for what the

agency does." The Justice Department of

course represents federal agencies in

court. And so, you know, that's really

kind of an interesting question as we

see some of these compliance issues come

up in cases. To what extent is the

Justice Department responsible for a

federal agency not fully following a

court order or interpreting it too

narrowly and and, you know, not

complying in the full spirit of the

order? I think that's an interesting

question and one that we've seen come up

already.

>> One of the first and probably still most

famous cases is where the chief judge in

DC, Judge Boseberg, ordered the

government when they were sending

Venezuelan immigrants to prisons in El

Salvador to turn the planes around and

they didn't. And he wanted to have a

criminal contempt investigation, but

what happened? the DC circuit ruled

against him on that issue and you know

blocked a hearing from being held.

Proceedings are still pending on that

issue. But yes, that was probably one of

the most famous issues of court

compliance that have happened in this

administration and happened so early.

Kind of set the tone perhaps for some of

the issues to come. And in that case, we

were talking about criminal contempt,

which is a different form of contempt

than we were discussing with the

Minnesota lawyer. That was civil

contempt. So quite a bit more serious.

Is this all a reflection of the Trump

administration trying to flex its

executive power?

>> Certainly, it depends who you ask. I

think that it is fair to say that when

we're seeing this many motions to force

compliance of court orders, more motions

to enforce preliminary orders, but also

some of the other ones you've talked

about to compel compliance to consider

contempt, that does probably show that

we're dealing with an executive branch

that is, you know, maybe interpreting

court orders in a new way or really, you

know, drawing more of this litigation as

well. The Department of Justice did

respond to our reporting and they blamed

really more the plaintiffs. you know,

they said this is not a pattern of

non-compliance on our part. Our DOJ

lawyers work closely with the agencies

to make sure they're complying and said

that it's actually the plaintiffs, the

court challengers who are trying to test

or expand the scope of injunctions. So I

think what we're also kind of seeing and

not only is sort of this flexing of

executive power but it's also the

tension between executive power and

judicial power and the administration

saying you know what can we do with the

courts ruling as they are and plaintiffs

are saying what can the courts do to

keep the administration from doing what

it's doing. So we're kind of seeing a

lot of that push and pull lately. I've

talked with a lot of former federal

prosecutors and former judges who say

that what's called the presumption of

regularity is being eroded by the Trump

administration's actions in court. I've

talked with a lot of former federal

prosecutors and former judges who say

that what's called the presumption of

regularity is being eroded in the Trump

administration. The presumption of

regularity is basically judges assuming

that the government acts in good faith

in court. But these days, judges are not

trusting what the Justice Department

lawyers are telling them in court.

>> That's certainly a consequence when

we're talking about court compliance

issues. if we're seeing examples where

the government is making I mean in

addition to court compliance issues

there have also been notable examples

where government lawyers have made

mistakes in court said things that

they've had to go back and later correct

and even if they are still correcting it

which is what you're supposed to do if

you notice an error you're supposed to

correct it that still does work to chip

away at that presumption of regularity

or you know the assumption judges make

that the government's acting in good

faith in court some of the lawyers I

spoke to you know one of them told me

that she didn't see the presumption of

regularity as being in full crisis at

this point yet, but that it's certainly

being tested. So, I think that's another

thing that we're going to watch in both

during this administration and in

administrations to come. To what extent

will the government be able to recover

from this?

>> It's also true that the Justice

Department is throwing a lot of

inexperienced lawyers into court because

so many experienced lawyers left the

department. And that's particularly true

in the immigration cases because there

are so many habius petitions that the

justice department has to deal with. Uh

yes, the brain drain in the justice

department is certainly a significant

factor when it comes to these issues.

Anytime you see a lawyer make a mistake

in court who's really new to the

department. I mean, you have to wonder

if perhaps having had more of those

career people who had years of

experience being there might have

helped. And certainly again in that

Minnesota case we were discussing the

attorney who was you know briefly held

in civil contempt was a a military

lawyer who'd been dispatched apparently

to help out with the surge of

immigration cases happening in Minnesota

at the time because you know there

wasn't the staffing to handle it. So I

mean those are the things that happen.

Things do slip through and you end up

with mistakes being made even under the

best intentions when there isn't full

staffing or full level of experience

>> and immigration law is so complicated.

Add that to the problems these young

lawyers are facing. Thanks so much,

Suzanne. That's Bloomberg Law reporter

Suzanne Monac. And that's it for this

edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.

Remember, you can always get the latest

legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcast.

You can find them on Apple Podcast,

Spotify, and at

www.bloomberg.com/mpodcast/law.

And remember to tune in to the Bloomberg

Law Show every week night at 1000 p.m.

Wall Street time. I'm June Graasso and

you're listening to Bloomberg.