Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseol from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2: Chebaka's gun down in a drive by shooting from a
Speaker 2: white Catalan in an act of revenge.
Speaker 3: Tupac Shakur is a cultural icon, considered one of the
Speaker 3: most influential and versatile rappers of all times. Despite dying
Speaker 3: at the age of twenty five in a drive by
Speaker 3: shooting in Las Vegas in nineteen ninety six, his murder
Speaker 3: was considered one of the biggest unsolved cases of our time,
Speaker 3: and now three decades later, Dwayne Keefe d Davis is
Speaker 3: on trial for orchestrating Shakur's murder. Here's how prosecutor Banupa
Speaker 3: Lal described it.
Speaker 4: Dwayne Davis did.
Speaker 2: Not hold the true but what he did do was
Speaker 2: planned the retaliation for the beating of his nephew. You
Speaker 2: will learn that Dwayne Davis got the gun. You will
Speaker 2: learn that he got into a white Cadillac. You will
Speaker 2: learn what the opportunity presented itself for retribution. Dwayne Davis
Speaker 2: made sure that the shooters armed and read.
Speaker 4: To execute their way.
Speaker 3: The strongest evidence in the prosecution's case appears to be
Speaker 3: Davis's own words. For years the former gang leader, actually
Speaker 3: boasted about his involvement in shooting Shakur, laying out the
Speaker 3: details in multiple interviews with police and the FBI, then
Speaker 3: on the pages of a memoir in twenty nineteen, and
Speaker 3: in media interviews. But in an unusual posture, the defense attorney,
Speaker 3: Michael Senfitt told the jurors his client was not to
Speaker 3: be believed.
Speaker 4: Just look at the actual facts. What facts do you
Speaker 4: have for any of what keped said? Eddy's interviews are
Speaker 4: in the book.
Speaker 3: But Suge Knight, who was in the car with Shakur
Speaker 3: when he was shot, thinks Davis will have a hard
Speaker 3: time convincing a jury. As he told ABC News in
Speaker 3: an interview from prison.
Speaker 1: Everything he's said he talked about, he every tone only
Speaker 1: seth say what are you going to do? He raised
Speaker 1: Arto recording through the interviews he did.
Speaker 3: The sixty three year old Davis faces life in prison
Speaker 3: if he's convicted of the murder. My guest is former
Speaker 3: federal prosecutor Nima Romani, President and co founder of West
Speaker 3: Coast Trial Lawyers. Nima start with the challenges of trying
Speaker 3: this thirty year old case where most of the people
Speaker 3: who were involved are no longer alive.
Speaker 5: It's very difficult to prosecute a case thirty years later,
Speaker 5: especially because everyone who is in Kiefi D's vehicle is dead,
Speaker 5: many of them for gang related reasons. Really, the only
Speaker 5: percipient witness that we know so far as Shuld Knight,
Speaker 5: who of course was driving Tupac's vehicle.
Speaker 4: But I think it's unlikely that he's.
Speaker 5: Going to testify in this case and identify either the
Speaker 5: shooter or even put Davis in the vehicle.
Speaker 4: The other issue is Tupac himself.
Speaker 5: The testimony that came out on the first day of
Speaker 5: trial was that he refused to snitch and identify the shooter,
Speaker 5: saying that he would take care of it himself. Of course,
Speaker 5: he's succumbed to his injuries at the hospital and was
Speaker 5: unable to do so.
Speaker 3: Does it seem like the best evidence the prosecution has
Speaker 3: is Keefyd's own words, because he bragged about being involved
Speaker 3: in the killing many times over the years and wrote
Speaker 3: a memoir to that effect.
Speaker 5: I've never covered a case like this that's based almost
Speaker 5: entirely on the defense's own words. The opening statements were surrealed,
Speaker 5: you have the prosecution calling Davis a criminal mastermind, the
Speaker 5: shot caller of this gang. And then you have the
Speaker 5: defense on the other hand, trying to undermine their client's
Speaker 5: own credibility. They said he was full of crap. They
Speaker 5: said this was all bs. They essentially were arguing that he's.
Speaker 1: A fool who was.
Speaker 4: Bragging to make himselves seem more important.
Speaker 5: Gain street cred in the gang culture, and to sell books.
Speaker 4: I've never seen anything like it.
Speaker 3: And at this point, the defense is claiming that there's
Speaker 3: no evidence that Davis was even in Las Vegas that night.
Speaker 4: This was a really important point.
Speaker 5: So Davis has said that he wasn't even in Vegas
Speaker 5: in interviews he's done from jail with local media outlets
Speaker 5: in Vegas. But during opening statements, the defense said that
Speaker 5: Davis lied about being ringside or close to it in
Speaker 5: the Mike Tyson fight.
Speaker 4: He wasn't even there. He wasn't at the fight.
Speaker 5: He wasn't in the city, which would be absolutely devastating
Speaker 5: to the prosecution's case.
Speaker 4: If that's true.
Speaker 5: They need witnesses to at least put him in Vegas
Speaker 5: and Clark County, otherwise they're going to have significant problems.
Speaker 3: He did many interviews over the years with the FBI,
Speaker 3: with Las Vegas Police, with LA Police, where he again
Speaker 3: boasted about his involvement in this shooting. I mean back
Speaker 3: to I think nineteen ninety eight. He talked to the
Speaker 3: FBI first, So I mean, is the jury going to
Speaker 3: be asking so if he talked to them all these times,
Speaker 3: why wasn't anything done, why did it take until twenty
Speaker 3: twenty three to indict him.
Speaker 5: That's one of the best arguments the defense has. They're
Speaker 5: arguing that even LAPD, even the FBI, they don't believe Davis.
Speaker 5: That's why they didn't charge him. And you're right, we're
Speaker 5: talking about going back to I think nineteen ninety seven
Speaker 5: was his first interview with LAPD after Biggie Smalls was
Speaker 5: killed outside the Peterson Auto Museum in Los Angeles. Of course,
Speaker 5: there's the infamous two thousand and eight interview with the
Speaker 5: Federal Task Force that became the issue of much litigation.
Speaker 5: He was given immunity. The prosecution argued that it was
Speaker 5: just use immunity. It didn't bind other jurisdictions, including Nevada.
Speaker 5: This was litigated all the way to the Nevada Supreme Court,
Speaker 5: where the defense argued that it was transactional immunity, he
Speaker 5: couldn't be prosecuted at all. Ultimately, the judge agreed with
Speaker 5: the prosecution that one jurisdiction cannot contractually bind another. And
Speaker 5: I think that two thousand and eight interview, as well
Speaker 5: as the twenty nineteen memoir, I think those are the
Speaker 5: most damning pieces of evidence for Davis and the defense.
Speaker 3: What do you think about the defense saying, oh, he
Speaker 3: was bragging in an interviews, Davis has said, you know,
Speaker 3: he was trying to make some money off this, so only.
Speaker 5: Pause, Well, the prosecution is going to need to corroborate
Speaker 5: these admissions or confessions with some independent evidence. It's gonna
Speaker 5: be very hard when you have the defendant now arguing
Speaker 5: that he's trying to sell books and seem more important.
Speaker 5: And ultimately, I think at a minimum, they got to
Speaker 5: put them in the vehicle, and the question is do
Speaker 5: they have the witnesses to do so. Their witnesses are
Speaker 5: going to testify about this white Cadillac that pulled up
Speaker 5: next to a BMW. But the challenge you, like you said,
Speaker 5: is all the precipient witnesses to the shooting, they're all dead.
Speaker 5: They can't testify, And of course, under the rules of
Speaker 5: hearsay and the confrontation clause and the Constitution, and accused
Speaker 5: has the right to cross examine his accuser.
Speaker 3: Also, they don't have the gun, they don't have the car.
Speaker 3: I don't know if they have any physical evidence at all.
Speaker 4: That's the concern.
Speaker 5: You're normally in a murder case, you're gonna have ballistics,
Speaker 5: you're gonna have DNA, you're gonna have fingerprints of any
Speaker 5: of that sell side evidence. So you're relying on these admissions.
Speaker 5: So obviously there's a potential motive. I think we're going
Speaker 5: to hear a lot of testimony about the beef between
Speaker 5: these gangs. And one other interesting wrinkle is that that
Speaker 5: may be helpful for the defense is that Davis previously
Speaker 5: said that Shanda Di Combs offered him a million dollars
Speaker 5: to kill Tupac. Now, of course Combs is denying that.
Speaker 5: But if that particular and comes isn't going to come
Speaker 5: anywhere near this trial. Like Shug Knight, he has his
Speaker 5: own legal problems. But if that statement is also untrue,
Speaker 5: it sort of leads to the conclusion that this is
Speaker 5: all just a complete fabrication by someone that had nothing
Speaker 5: to do with it. That's why that independent, corroborating evidence
Speaker 5: is going to be critical for the state.
Speaker 3: So basically you just can't believe anything that Davis says.
Speaker 4: Well, that's the point.
Speaker 5: The more elaborate the lies and the Combe part being
Speaker 5: one of them, the better it is for the defense. Again,
Speaker 5: it's really bizarre that they're just trying to undermine their
Speaker 5: own client's credibility. I've never seen anything like this in
Speaker 5: any case I've ever covered. So the more lies there are,
Speaker 5: and the bigger those lies, the better it is for
Speaker 5: the defense.
Speaker 3: The defense attorneys also pointing to missing documents in the
Speaker 3: original investigation, detectives work as being biased, sloppy, and incompetent
Speaker 3: and even you know, some corruption there. I mean, that's
Speaker 3: an argument that we've heard many, many times before.
Speaker 4: That's the challenge when you have these types of cases.
Speaker 5: Because I live and work in Los Angeles, and I
Speaker 5: was here in the nineties, and obviously this is not
Speaker 5: a Los Angeles case, but there's a perception or there was,
Speaker 5: that LAPD was corrupted.
Speaker 4: During that time.
Speaker 5: Rampart, Rodney King, the failure to ever arrest anyone for
Speaker 5: the Tupac or Biggie murders. There are a lot of
Speaker 5: people who believe that law enforcement were complicit. It was
Speaker 5: bad boy. So the challenge is when you have a
Speaker 5: thirty year old case.
Speaker 4: I'm not saying.
Speaker 5: Everyone is of age to remember when Tupac was killed,
Speaker 5: but some of these jurors have very strong, preconceived notions
Speaker 5: as to who was responsible for Tupac's death.
Speaker 4: That becomes a challenge.
Speaker 5: And you know, there are other cases as well where
Speaker 5: this has been an issue. I think a recent example
Speaker 5: not a murder case, but the fire case here in
Speaker 5: Los Angeles where I live. Jonathan Render connect He was
Speaker 5: charged for arson, but that was after many, many months
Speaker 5: when people believe that the LA Fire Department, the LA
Speaker 5: Department of Water and Power, mayor Karen Bass, mother Nature,
Speaker 5: they're all responsible for the devastating Malibu and Palisades fire.
Speaker 5: Then the US Attorney's office charges this arsonist and ultimately
Speaker 5: the jury hung tend to in favor of a quick
Speaker 5: and one of the jurors that spoke out and said, no,
Speaker 5: this wasn't his fault.
Speaker 4: He's being scapegoaded.
Speaker 5: So I think the defense has an argument here that
Speaker 5: it was law enforcement that failed to do their job.
Speaker 5: And by the way, this is not the defense lawyers
Speaker 5: argue in almost every case, right, a poor, sloppy investigation
Speaker 5: and the fact that it took thirty years to bring
Speaker 5: any criminal charges against one of or actually who I
Speaker 5: believe is the greatest rapper of all time being murdered
Speaker 5: does play into that argument.
Speaker 3: Stay with me. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show,
Speaker 3: I'll continue this conversation with former federal prosecutor Nima Romani.
Speaker 3: What's the likelihood that the defendant might take the stand?
Speaker 3: This is Bloomberg. Fans of the late rapper Tupac Shakourt
Speaker 3: stood outside the Las Vegas courthouse as a trial thirty
Speaker 3: years in the making started in a courtroom where Dwayne
Speaker 3: KEEFD Davis is accused of Shakur's murder in a drive
Speaker 3: shooting in nineteen ninety six. Some fans, like Derek Lee
Speaker 3: Stanton Junior, say they're prepared to stick it out as
Speaker 3: long as the trial lasts.
Speaker 5: It's more important than ever right now to even be
Speaker 5: having this conversation be brought up, for everybody to be
Speaker 5: focusing on this, and to even want to find suggestice
Speaker 5: for Tucrose Court.
Speaker 3: I've been talking to former federal prosecutor Nima Romani, president
Speaker 3: of West Coast Trial Lawyers. Tubac remains a cultural icon.
Speaker 3: He's considered by many, and I guess you to be
Speaker 3: one of the most influential and versatile rappers of all time.
Speaker 3: Fans of Tubac are standing outside the courthouse. How does
Speaker 3: that play, if at all, into the way the jury
Speaker 3: considers the case.
Speaker 5: I think it helps the prosecution because to the extent
Speaker 5: that you have a beloved victim, jurors are don't want
Speaker 5: to hold someone anyone responsible. Obviously, you know of cases
Speaker 5: where and again I don't condone any type of violence,
Speaker 5: but if you're looking at a very different type of
Speaker 5: case would be Luigimanngoni because health insurance is so unpopular
Speaker 5: that that's a challenge for the prosecution in that case
Speaker 5: and certainly a benefit to the defense.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 5: I don't, of course condone violence for any reason, but
Speaker 5: when your victim is very well liked, I think that's
Speaker 5: an advantage for the prosecution because the jurors are going
Speaker 5: to want to hold someone responsible.
Speaker 3: The trials expected to last between four to six weeks,
Speaker 3: and prosecutors are expected to call thirty five to forty
Speaker 3: five witnesses. We've discussed how no one who was in
Speaker 3: the car, except allegedly for the defendant, is still alive.
Speaker 3: Shug Knight, who's serving time in prison for another crime,
Speaker 3: has said he doesn't want to testify. So besides retired
Speaker 3: police officers and detectives and perhaps some people who were
Speaker 3: at the hotel or the fight, who else do you
Speaker 3: think is on the prosecution's witness list.
Speaker 5: I think they're not going to be your witnesses in
Speaker 5: the traditional sense, and that they didn't actually perceive the murder.
Speaker 5: I think we're going to see a lot of people
Speaker 5: talk about this feud, you know, this history, the obviously
Speaker 5: the fight at the MGM, basically setting the stage and
Speaker 5: really telling a story of why Davis would be motivated
Speaker 5: to shoot and kill or orchestrate the murder of Tupac Shakur.
Speaker 5: So I expect there to be a lot of witnesses
Speaker 5: telling that story, But as far as precipient witnesses, you're right,
Speaker 5: soon I don't think there are many, if any.
Speaker 2: At all.
Speaker 3: Do you think it'll end up being does the jury
Speaker 3: believe what Davis said before and through the years, or
Speaker 3: do they believe what he's saying now and he's been
Speaker 3: saying only since he was arrested.
Speaker 5: I think it's a fascinating case because it's really based
Speaker 5: on what Davis has said. Now, if you're the p execution,
Speaker 5: I think you get there in a couple ways. One,
Speaker 5: you have to show that Davis's story has been consistent
Speaker 5: over the years, over the past almost thirty years now.
Speaker 4: If the story is consistent, that's helpful.
Speaker 5: There's inconsistencies because when people lie, they can obviously often
Speaker 5: change their stories over time, especially after many years. The
Speaker 5: second is that corroboration I talked about. I mean, they
Speaker 5: need something. If they're just hanging their hat on the
Speaker 5: confessions alone, I think that's challenging, especially because, like the
Speaker 5: defense argued, no one else has filed charges notwithstanding these confessions.
Speaker 3: The defense blinds to call just a handful of witnesses.
Speaker 3: The defense attorney hasn't said whether the defendant will take
Speaker 3: the stand in his own defense if he testifies. Are
Speaker 3: the jurors supposed to believe him now, supposed to believe
Speaker 3: him before?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 5: I think if I'm the defense, I do not under
Speaker 5: any circumstances put Davis on the stand, someone that is
Speaker 5: going to be completely destroyed on across examination. Maybe you
Speaker 5: want him to be destroyed because you want him to
Speaker 5: just look so incompetent.
Speaker 4: You want him to be a bumbling fool.
Speaker 5: So maybe it would be a mad genius move, but
Speaker 5: it's very, very risky for this type of defendant. He's
Speaker 5: obviously opened his mouth many many times when he should
Speaker 5: not have. Even when he was in jail, he was
Speaker 5: talking to reporters, right. It's really unheard of unless there's
Speaker 5: a specific pr or other reasons while there's a pending
Speaker 5: criminal case for a defendant to talk to reporters.
Speaker 4: I mean, it certainly happens.
Speaker 5: We've seen it, and I believe with Scott Peterson and
Speaker 5: others who have a certain narcissism to them. But it
Speaker 5: is risky, and if I were the defense here, I
Speaker 5: would kind of stick with with what I got, which
Speaker 5: is really reasonable doubt because the prosecution is at a
Speaker 5: disadvantage because so much time has passed and most of
Speaker 5: the witnesses are dead.
Speaker 3: A jury of sixteen people, six man and ten women
Speaker 3: was seated, so four are alternates. Potential jurors were questioned
Speaker 3: about their knowledge of gang's guns, hip hop music, and
Speaker 3: memories of the nineteen nineties music scene. Among the jurors,
Speaker 3: you have a self help guru who once had a
Speaker 3: shoplifting habit, a motorcycle riding, retired gemologist who says she'd
Speaker 3: never heard of Tupac but doesn't have a problem with
Speaker 3: gang culture, and a maleman who used to listen to
Speaker 3: Tupac's music back in the nineties. So you appear to
Speaker 3: have a very diverse jury there.
Speaker 5: I say this respectfully. I am licensed in Nevada. We
Speaker 5: have an office in Las Vegas. But Vegas can have
Speaker 5: some interesting folks that travel through there, so I'm not
Speaker 5: surprised there's a diverse cast of characters.
Speaker 4: Look, I always say it's twelve men and.
Speaker 5: Women who can't get out of jury duty, right, So
Speaker 5: I'm not surprised you have all types on that panel.
Speaker 3: Here. He's charged with murder with a deadly weapon with
Speaker 3: the intent to promote, further or assist a criminal gang.
Speaker 3: Do you think the jurors will have any problem with
Speaker 3: the fact that the prosecution says that the defendant himself
Speaker 3: didn't pull the trigger.
Speaker 4: I don't think so.
Speaker 5: I think the jury instructions are pretty clear as well
Speaker 5: established that you can be convicted as a co conspirator,
Speaker 5: you can be convicted as an accomplice. The classic law
Speaker 5: school example is, you know there's a murderer and you're
Speaker 5: driving the getaway car. You don't have to pull the
Speaker 5: trigger to be guilty of murder under those circumstances as
Speaker 5: an accomplice. And in this particular case, at least, the
Speaker 5: prosecution is a legend that Davis got the gun and
Speaker 5: they're pretty specific as to who he got it from.
Speaker 5: He passed it to someone in the backseat only because
Speaker 5: he was to the right of tupacs car in the
Speaker 5: front passenger seat. And his story is that had he
Speaker 5: been on the other side and had a clear shot,
Speaker 5: he would have taken it himself. So that's pretty damaging
Speaker 5: for the defense. He passed the firearm to someone in
Speaker 5: the back who didn't or was unable to take the shot,
Speaker 5: and the other backseat passenger did so under those circumstances, that's.
Speaker 4: Murder under the law. If the jurors believed that story.
Speaker 3: That story, you know, as you're reciting it, does have
Speaker 3: a lot of details that make it seem credible. I
Speaker 3: have to say, you know, for a jury, because it's
Speaker 3: not just I gave someone the gun and they know
Speaker 3: it's I wasn't on the right side, or I would
Speaker 3: have shot him and then I came to someone in
Speaker 3: the front. And also he talks about Tupac actually waving
Speaker 3: to fans or whatever he said, if they wouldn't have
Speaker 3: known that he was in the car, if he hadn't
Speaker 3: done that. So, I mean there are some details.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it was fastin. I mean, yeah, there are very
Speaker 4: specific details.
Speaker 5: And what's sort of fascinating is a Tupac's car was
Speaker 5: apparently pulled over about ten minutes before he was shot
Speaker 5: because I got no plates. So I'm obviously an important
Speaker 5: part of the story. But yeah, like you said, if
Speaker 5: the story is precise, if it's consistent, if it's corroborated,
Speaker 5: I think the prosecution can get there.
Speaker 4: But if it's just a general story.
Speaker 5: About a hip hop feud, it's gonna be hard to
Speaker 5: get twelve out of twelve.
Speaker 3: The straw was thirty years in the making. We'll have
Speaker 3: to see if it lives up to the expectations that
Speaker 3: many people have for it.
Speaker 5: I am just really excited to be covering this one.
Speaker 4: Hopefully the jury gets it right.
Speaker 5: But really the fact that there have been no charges
Speaker 5: in two of these cold cases for decades, it's really
Speaker 5: a head scratcher and really plays into the perception, right
Speaker 5: or wrong, that law enforcement is corrupt and that they
Speaker 5: either don't take these cases seriously at best, or we're
Speaker 5: complicit somehow at worst. So I'm glad the case is
Speaker 5: moving forward, excited to see what the coming days and
Speaker 5: weeks show in terms of the test.
Speaker 3: It's always great to get your Insightsnema. That's Nima Romani,
Speaker 3: president and co founder of West Coast Trial Lawyers. A
Speaker 3: federal judge in Los Angeles signaled she's likely to issue
Speaker 3: a preliminary injunction ordering ICE to stop making warrantless arrests
Speaker 3: unless agents first determine that a person is a flight risk.
Speaker 3: That would force ICE agents to fundamentally change the way
Speaker 3: they've been conducting the sweeps at the heart of President
Speaker 3: Trump's massive deportation campaign. Joining me is an expert in
Speaker 3: immigration law, Leon Fresco, a partner at Hollanda Knight. He
Speaker 3: was the head of the Justice Department's Office of Immigration
Speaker 3: Litigation during the Obama administration. Leon, is this the same
Speaker 3: case that went up to the Supreme Court at one point.
Speaker 6: So this case, I've had a lot of iteration. So
Speaker 6: it started in June of twenty twenty five with the
Speaker 6: word of go to the home depot and start grabbing people.
Speaker 1: We want to get to three thousand arrests a day.
Speaker 6: And there was a tro at, a preliminary injunction back
Speaker 6: then that had to do with racial profiling and said
Speaker 6: you need to have a warrant in order to arrest
Speaker 6: people if you were doing these roving ice operations.
Speaker 1: You couldn't just do that.
Speaker 6: You had to have a list of people that you
Speaker 6: knew were in undocumented status and you had to pick
Speaker 6: them up.
Speaker 1: And that was for all of Los Angeles County.
Speaker 6: And what happened was this is where the Kavanaugh stops
Speaker 6: was created. That ended up going all the way to
Speaker 6: the Supreme Court. And just as Kavanaugh said, no, no, no,
Speaker 6: you can have warrantless arrests here because you can see
Speaker 6: certain things about people that are common toward the fact
Speaker 6: pattern of being undocumented where they're being apprehended, Are they
Speaker 6: speaking a different.
Speaker 1: Language, blah blah blah.
Speaker 6: And so that ended up being disbanded, and so these
Speaker 6: folks came back with a new legal thing, and the
Speaker 6: new legal theory was, well, wait a second, maybe this
Speaker 6: isn't based on racial profiling. Maybe the problem is that
Speaker 6: these arrests that are happening are not just warrantless, but
Speaker 6: they're warrantless, and they're also being done without taking into
Speaker 6: account whether these individuals are actually flight risks or dangerous.
Speaker 6: Because the idea was you should only be arresting again
Speaker 6: people on a list that you know are on document.
Speaker 6: That you shouldn't be pulling people over on the street
Speaker 6: and just arresting them unless you thought that the problem
Speaker 6: was that if you didn't arrest them right at that minute,
Speaker 6: then you would never be able to find them ever again.
Speaker 6: And so their view the plaintiffs was that ICE was
Speaker 6: sort of papering over this work using form language, and
Speaker 6: they actually said they were using some inappropriate racist language also,
Speaker 6: and so they had all of these accusations.
Speaker 3: Leon this tentative ruling. Explain why it's tentative in California.
Speaker 6: I never knew this until I worked at the Department
Speaker 6: of Justice because I'm from Florida and I lived in DC.
Speaker 1: But in California they have this weird thing.
Speaker 6: Where when you show up to court for an oral argument,
Speaker 6: they give you the decision before you.
Speaker 1: Even have the oral argument, which is very odd. And disconcerting.
Speaker 6: And so that's what that happened here is the judge
Speaker 6: gave them the preliminary injunction. It's called the tentative ruling,
Speaker 6: and then you have to argue why the tentative ruling
Speaker 6: shouldn't go into effect, which I've always found like, well,
Speaker 6: once the judge spent fifty hours doing work to put
Speaker 6: in a fifty page order, why would they ever go
Speaker 6: back on their tentative ruling. I mean, that's cognitive dissonance
Speaker 6: at its you know, one hundred percent level there. But nevertheless,
Speaker 6: when I was at the DLJ, was able to argue
Speaker 6: a case out from under a tentative ruling. But it's very,
Speaker 6: very hard to do, and most people think this judge
Speaker 6: will not go away from her tentative ruling and will
Speaker 6: issue the p liminary injunction.
Speaker 1: That then says that.
Speaker 6: You actually have to have individualized language that says this
Speaker 6: is why this person is a flight risk or dangerous
Speaker 6: and if you don't do that, then you need a
Speaker 6: warrant in advance in order to arrest them. And then
Speaker 6: we're going to have to again work our way up
Speaker 6: to the Supreme Court to see if that's really the
Speaker 6: standard here.
Speaker 3: So for federal judges in Oregon, Colorado, DC, and Sacramento
Speaker 3: have issued these preliminary injunctions against the warrantless arrest by
Speaker 3: ICE agency. But has it reached a finappellate court yet.
Speaker 6: I mean, so it reached the Supreme Court on the
Speaker 6: issue of racial profiling, but not on the issue of
Speaker 6: making an individualized determination about flight risk. And so that's
Speaker 6: where it's going to need to get to an appellate
Speaker 6: court and then ultimately to the Supreme Court. Most of
Speaker 6: these are in the Ninth Circuit, So the Ninth Circuit
Speaker 6: will eventually deal with this one way or the other
Speaker 6: on the issue of what kind of determination ICE has
Speaker 6: to make. I find it hard to believe that ICE
Speaker 6: ultimately will have their hands tied by the Supreme Court
Speaker 6: to the extent that they're not allowed to make arrests.
Speaker 6: But we'll have to wait and see it. I just
Speaker 6: don't see it. I think they will be allowed to
Speaker 6: make arrest. The way the Supreme Court usually deals with
Speaker 6: these things is they say, look, if there's an unconstitutional
Speaker 6: arrest as applied to a specific person, come back to
Speaker 6: us and argue about that. But we're not in advance
Speaker 6: going to just tie ICE's hands for no reason. So
Speaker 6: they love this idea of as applied constitutional challenges and say,
Speaker 6: come back to us later if they're the problem with
Speaker 6: the way this is being implemented.
Speaker 3: Let's turn to another topic. The Justice Department Administrative Panel
Speaker 3: has ruled that DOCA recipients and others who travel internationally
Speaker 3: with advanced parole could be disqualified from immigration benefits, including
Speaker 3: permanent residency. I mean, what normally happens when a DOCA
Speaker 3: recipient decides to travel internationally.
Speaker 6: I'll try to keep this as simple as possible, but
Speaker 6: it's actually a very huge order that affects millions of people.
Speaker 6: So that's why I thought it was important to talk
Speaker 6: about it today.
Speaker 1: Is here's what happens. In nineteen ninety six.
Speaker 6: As part of something called the Illegal Immigrant Reform and
Speaker 6: Responsibility Act, it was President Clinton and then the Republican Congress.
Speaker 1: They came together and they and they agreed on this.
Speaker 6: They said that illegal immigration had gotten out of control
Speaker 6: to such an extent that we needed to do something
Speaker 6: about it, and they created something called the three year
Speaker 6: ten year Barer. What it says is, if you are
Speaker 6: in America in an undocumented status, for longer than one
Speaker 6: hundred and eighty days. If you leave, your ban for
Speaker 6: three years from coming in, and if you are here
Speaker 6: for longer than three hundred and sixty five days in
Speaker 6: undocumented status, then that ban is ten years. So if
Speaker 6: you leave, you can't come back in for ten years.
Speaker 6: It's a categorical ban. And so what's the problem. So
Speaker 6: the problem is this, sometimes people will overstay their visas
Speaker 6: and eventually meet someone and get married, you know, like
Speaker 6: in the movie The Proposal with Ryan Reynolds and.
Speaker 1: Exactly.
Speaker 6: And so in those situations, people can then apply for
Speaker 6: green cards or DOCA is another example where the people
Speaker 6: who had DOCA they didn't have a legal status, now
Speaker 6: they have one. Now they can apply for a green card. Okay,
Speaker 6: so what happens next. What happens next is during the
Speaker 6: year or two years, it takes like between a year
Speaker 6: or two years that you're waiting for your green card,
Speaker 6: you are trapped inside of the United States. You're not
Speaker 6: allowed to travel abroad unless you get permission from the government,
Speaker 6: and that piece of permission is called advanced parole. If
Speaker 6: you leave without that permission, you're abandoning your application and
Speaker 6: they never let you back in. You're totally in big trouble,
Speaker 6: so you have to have that piece of permission.
Speaker 1: So the question is, when the government gives you this advanced.
Speaker 6: Parole permission to travel, did it say to you, oh,
Speaker 6: we know that if you had left, you would have
Speaker 6: been subject to the three and ten year bar. But
Speaker 6: we're saying no, no, no, don't worry about it. You
Speaker 6: can come back in. And that's what the government did
Speaker 6: say for the last fifteen years. But what the Trump
Speaker 6: administration has just done is said no, no, no, no.
Speaker 6: If you leave the country, even if we gave you
Speaker 6: one of these permission slips to leave the country, guess what,
Speaker 6: you're never coming back in. You're subject to that ten
Speaker 6: year ban and you're never going to be allowed back in.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 6: They didn't do it retroactively, which is good. They did
Speaker 6: it prospectively, so at least they gave people now a warning.
Speaker 6: But the point is many people would use these paroles
Speaker 6: in order to be able to actually qualify for a
Speaker 6: green card. That's what the Knaka people did, because what
Speaker 6: happens is if you entered illegally into the United States,
Speaker 6: then you can't get a green card. Not overstay your visa.
Speaker 6: It doesn't matter who you marry. You could marry Trump,
Speaker 6: you still can't get a green card. But when you
Speaker 6: got one of these paroles, that fixed that.
Speaker 1: But now they're saying no, no, no, no.
Speaker 6: If you leave, even if you have a parole that
Speaker 6: you used to think would fix that, it doesn't fix that.
Speaker 6: So now the immigration lawyers are scrambling telling all of
Speaker 6: their clients who possess these advanced parole documents that if
Speaker 6: they're in one of these cases where they're currently in
Speaker 6: a marriage that they're trying to use to excuse and overstay,
Speaker 6: don't leave because you're never going to be able to
Speaker 6: come back in the country. And so a lot of people,
Speaker 6: at least upfront, are going to get snagged by this
Speaker 6: during the transition period and it's going to be quite
Speaker 6: a mess.
Speaker 3: I have a DACA question. It can all DACA recipients
Speaker 3: get green cards?
Speaker 1: Well, so here's what happened. What the DACA does.
Speaker 3: It easy answer to any of my questions.
Speaker 6: Yes, Well the answer is maybe at alex play. So
Speaker 6: here's what happens. What the DOCA does is it gives.
Speaker 1: You a status.
Speaker 6: Because a lot of these DOKA kids crossed illegally, so
Speaker 6: they had no way of getting a green card. But
Speaker 6: what the DOCA does is it gives you a kind
Speaker 6: of a quasi status. And at least under the Biden administration,
Speaker 6: when you had this quasi status, then what would happen
Speaker 6: was they would give you an advanced parole and so
Speaker 6: you could travel and come back, and when you came back,
Speaker 6: that parole fixed the fact that you came illegally the
Speaker 6: first time. So now you've entered legally, and now you
Speaker 6: could marry a US citizen and get a green card,
Speaker 6: or you could get an employment but now that's all gone.
Speaker 1: They say.
Speaker 6: Even if the Biden administration gave you such a promision,
Speaker 6: good luck trying to use it. If you leave and
Speaker 6: you use it, we're not letting you back in the country.
Speaker 6: There's potentially fifty thousand people who could be snagged in
Speaker 6: under this if they're not careful.
Speaker 3: Something else from the Department of Justice. The Department of
Speaker 3: Justice has put employers on notice they can face discrimination
Speaker 3: claims for favoring foreign workers over US workers, even if
Speaker 3: they're technically complying with Labor Department regulations. So explain what
Speaker 3: does an employer have to go through if they want
Speaker 3: to hire a foreign worker.
Speaker 6: Yeah, there's different processes, but the process that this one
Speaker 6: is referring to is the process by which you hire
Speaker 6: a foreign worker for a green card for what's called
Speaker 6: an employment based green card for lawful permanent residents. The
Speaker 6: main process there is a process where you have to
Speaker 6: do recruiting to show that an American worker was not available.
Speaker 6: The statute itself has things that it says that you
Speaker 6: have to do. So, for instance, it said you have
Speaker 6: to put two ads on a Sunday paper and then
Speaker 6: you have to pick between a radio ad or an
Speaker 6: internet posting or whatever. It gives you like a menu
Speaker 6: of ten things, and you have to pick four of them.
Speaker 1: And so here's the problem.
Speaker 6: Even though you're technically compliant, when you do a search
Speaker 6: for a US worker using the four criteria, they give
Speaker 6: you ten and you can pick any four you on.
Speaker 6: What the Department of Justice is now saying is yeah,
Speaker 6: that's fine and dandy, But if you're not using the
Speaker 6: actual means that you use when you actually want to
Speaker 6: find a worker, then we're going to say this is
Speaker 6: a sham process. So not only do you have to
Speaker 6: use you know, four out of ten things in our menu,
Speaker 6: but if you do something normally to find workers, you're
Speaker 6: going to have to do that same normal thing here
Speaker 6: because this shouldn't be a process about not finding someone.
Speaker 6: You should be trying to do everything you normally do
Speaker 6: to find someone, and only if you can't find someone,
Speaker 6: then do you hire the foreign worker.
Speaker 3: So there were thirteen settlements reached in the past eighteen
Speaker 3: months involving this alleged hiring bias, and open AI reached
Speaker 3: a settlement with the Justice Department of three point two
Speaker 3: million dollars. Did that number come out of an error
Speaker 3: or did it relate to the number of violations.
Speaker 6: Violation per person? But at the end of the day,
Speaker 6: these settlements are because people don't want to litigate these issues.
Speaker 6: And so the question is, is some company ultimately going
Speaker 6: to want to litigate this and say, why can't I
Speaker 6: use four out of the ten that you told me
Speaker 6: to use? Why do I have to use the same
Speaker 6: ones that I use for my other employees If these
Speaker 6: were the ones you wanted me to use, do that
Speaker 6: or otherwise say I have to use the same ones
Speaker 6: that I use for my normal employees. But you know
Speaker 6: this is the problem.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 6: The reason all of this is crazy is because what
Speaker 6: happened is these foreign workers are already in the company.
Speaker 6: They're usually working on a temporary visa on an H
Speaker 6: one B, and what you're trying to do is you're
Speaker 6: trying to reward them for good work by applying for
Speaker 6: their green card. The employers want to do the right
Speaker 6: thing and give that employee a green card, but in
Speaker 6: order to do that, they have to show there's not
Speaker 6: an American to get that job. So technically, from the
Speaker 6: employer's standpoint, the way they're incentivized to do this is
Speaker 6: to try to not find an American worker so that
Speaker 6: they can give this employee a Green card. And so
Speaker 6: the incentive structure is horrible. It's a terrible situation. And
Speaker 6: so this is one of the key areas where immigration
Speaker 6: reform is needed, so that at the end of the day,
Speaker 6: the people who get green cards are people with skills.
Speaker 1: And talents and abilities that.
Speaker 6: Are important to the marketplace, not this system where you
Speaker 6: have this perverse incentive where the only way someone can
Speaker 6: get a green card is for an employer to have
Speaker 6: to go through a kabuki theater of trying to show
Speaker 6: there's not an.
Speaker 1: American worker there.
Speaker 6: That system has sort of had its day, and we
Speaker 6: really do need to move to a new system.
Speaker 3: Though I think the term kabuki theater would apply to
Speaker 3: many of the immigration cases we've discussed. Leon, thanks for
Speaker 3: joining me. As always, that's Leon Fresco of Hollanden Night,
Speaker 3: and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
Speaker 3: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
Speaker 3: our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
Speaker 3: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law,
Speaker 3: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
Speaker 3: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
Speaker 3: and you're listening to Bloomberg