It's short but very powerful.  I don't want to ruin it, but it ends this way:

With a judicial finger in the constitutional dike,
It is so ORDERED. 

The opening statements were interesting.  Madison Smyser opened for the prosecution.  Teny Geragos (who opened in Diddy) and Deanna Paul opened for the defense. three women in a sexual assault case against 3 men.  

Howard Srebnick reserved opening for the third brother.  Have any of you ever reserved opening?  It's an interesting strategy when you have co-defendants who are laying out the defense.  It gives the defense another opportunity at the end of the prosecution case to address the jury.  

Here's ABC on the openings:

Three sons of wealth and privilege "were partners in crime" who used their money and status to lure women and girls with promises of trips, exclusive parties and celebrity encounters so they could sexually assault them, a federal prosecutor said Tuesday during opening statements in the trial of Alon, Oren and Tal Alexander.

"These three brothers masqueraded as party boys when really they were predators," the prosecutor, Madison Smyser, said. "The brothers used whatever means necessary -- sometimes drugs, sometimes alcohol, sometimes brute force -- to carry out their rapes."

The former real estate titans, Oren and Tal Alexander, along with their brother, Alon Alexander, have denied sexually assaulting anyone or running a sex trafficking conspiracy, as prosecutors have charged. They sat at the defense tables with their lawyers in suits and open-collar shirts.

***

"They came from a wealthy family, and they lived a life of luxury.  But their luxurious lifestyle had a dark side," Smyser said.

A defense attorney called the brothers successful, ambitious, arrogant young men "who liked and pursued women" so they could have as much sex as possible. 

"That's not trafficking. That's dating. That's hooking up," the lawyer, Teny Geragos, said during opening statements.  She said the accusers, many of whom are expected to testify under pseudonyms, are motivated by shame, regret or money.

Prosecutors told the jury of six men and six women they would see a recording of Oren Alexander's alleged rape of a then-17-year-old who will testify under the name Amelia.  She was "far from sober, almost incoherent" at the time and has no memory of what happened, Smyser said. 

***

 By John R. Byrne

Judge Valle was an excellent magistrate judge and universally respected by attorneys, civil and criminal alike. We're going to miss her. 

 The Miami brothers will be starting trial tomorrow with opening statements after a week of motions and picking the jury in SDNY.  Howard Srebnick and Jackie Perzcek have one of the brothers.  Marc Agnifilo and Teny Geragos (of Diddy fame) have another.  The judge is known for being as pro-prosecution as they come and has already precluded the defense from putting in basic evidence -- for example, that one of the brothers got married (which evidence would show withdrawal from any supposed conspiracy and is just basic background evidence that is always admissible).  That's what I like about trying cases here in SDFLA -- most judges (even the most prosecution friendly) will at least let you try your case.  

Here's CNN with a preview of the trial:

Federal prosecutors accuse two of New York’s top real estate brokers, and their brother, of sexually assaulting over a dozen women and young girls over a period that spanned more than a decade.

During the trial’s opening statements, which are scheduled for Monday, prosecutors are expected to describe to a jury how they believe the three brothers — Oren and Tal Alexander, the real estate brokers to the ultra-wealthy, and Alon, an executive at the family’s security company — used their wealth and position to lure women to lavish parties or vacation destinations, drug them with cocaine and club drugs, and violently rape and sexually assault them.

Law enforcement allege the brothers identified women they found attractive on dating apps through party promoters and chance encounters, and often would pool financial resources to pay for the women’s travel expenses, according to court filings. The alleged assaults occurred from 2008 until 2021 in luxury locations in the Hamptons, Aspen, Las Vegas, Manhattan, and during a Caribbean cruise, according to court filings. 

Judge Valerie Caproni, who is presiding over the trial in the Southern District of New York, ruled that several of the accusers can testify using pseudonyms, including women who were minors at the time of the alleged assaults. More than 20 women could be called to testify in the case.

Prosecutors have argued in court that they have text messages between the brothers and others arranging travel in addition to photos and videos. 

As of Friday, a jury of six women and six men was selected for the trial, which is expected to last at least a month.

Two explosive stories this week reveal how the Department of Justice and its allied political forces are undermining judicial independence and constitutional checks on law enforcement.

1. House Leadership Backs Impeaching Federal Judges

House Speaker Mike Johnson publicly announced support for impeaching federal judges whose rulings block the Trump administration’s agenda. Johnson signaled he is “for it” when asked about impeachment resolutions targeting at least two judges accused by senators of “egregious abuses” of power. The push is centered on judges who have issued orders adverse to the administration’s immigration and other policies. Pretty troubling.

This isn’t just rhetorical bluster — Legislators have introduced resolutions against judges like James Boasberg and Deborah Boardman, and Johnson’s willingness to embrace impeachment raises the specter of legislative retaliation for judicial rulings, undermining the separation of powers that anchors our constitutional system.

2. ICE Can Enter Homes Without Judicial Warrants

Across the law enforcement landscape, another alarming shift is unfolding: an internal ICE memo disclosed this week authorizes Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to forcibly enter private homes without a judge-signed warrant, using only an administrative immigration document for individuals with final deportation orders. This breaks with long-standing Fourth Amendment norms requiring a judicial warrant for residential entries and seizures.

Whistleblowers say the memorandum, drafted in May 2025, is being used to train new ICE officers, even though it conflicts with previous training that limited administrative warrants to public arrests. Critics contend this policy effectively instructs agents to bypass constitutional safeguards, and legal challenges are already brewing.

Orin Kerr has a lengthy post explaining the law here. 

Who is going to stand up for our judges and our Constitution?

A number of sources inside the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida tell me that the entire office was summoned yesterday at 4:00 p.m. 

Mandatory attendance. 

No agenda disclosed. 

At the meeting, the U.S. Attorney reportedly said that defense counsel* in a recent trial unearthed old tweets by Will Rosenzwieg criticizing Donald Trump. He then said that the defense "forced" the government's hand in firing Rosenzweig. Losing the trial after being "forced" to fire a prosecutor was not an option.

So the Office assembled its “dream team” of prosecutors—David Turken, Roger Cruz, and Rob Moore—to try the case.

In front of the entire office, the trio was presented with the first-ever “Golden Hammer” awards. Actual, oversized, shiny golden hammers. ...

 * Defense counsel vehemently denies it, says it's completely untrue, and it didn't come from them.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the conviction of a Montana man who was convicted of assaulting a police officer. In a unanimous decision written by Justice Elena Kagan, the court ruled in Case v. Montana that police officers in Anaconda, Montana, did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they entered William Case’s home without a warrant, rejecting Case’s contention that the police officers needed “probable cause” to go into his house. Under the Supreme Court’s earlier cases, Kagan wrote, it was enough that the police officers reasonably believed that Case – whose former girlfriend had called them to tell them that Case had threatened to commit suicide – needed emergency assistance.

The case began in 2021, when Case told his former girlfriend, identified in court papers as J.H., that he “was going to kill himself” and would also shoot any police officers who came to his house. J.H. called 9-1-1, which sent three police officers to the scene for a “welfare check on a suicidal male.”

Although Case did not answer when police officers knocked on the door or yelled into an open window, the police officers saw empty beer cans, an empty handgun holster, and what they believed to be a suicide note in the house. The police officers were also aware that Case had threatened to commit suicide before; on another occasion, police officers believed that Case was trying to goad them into shooting him.

Roughly 40 minutes after they arrived, the police officers entered the home. Case was hiding in a closet in an upstairs bedroom, where he was holding a black object that officers believed was a gun. One officer shot Case in the abdomen; another officer discovered a handgun in a laundry hamper near Case.

Case asked the trial court to exclude the evidence that law enforcement officials obtained after they entered his house, arguing that police officers should have had a warrant. But the state courts rejected that argument, prompting Case to come to the Supreme Court.

Case contended that if police officers enter a home without a warrant to provide emergency assistance, they must have probable cause “to believe someone is in urgent need of help.” On Wednesday the Supreme Court disagreed. In an 11-page opinion, Kagan acknowledged that the sanctity of the home is at the core of the Fourth Amendment, which protects the people from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” As a general rule, she explained, “[w]hen the intru­sion is into that most private place, ‘reasonableness’ usu­ally means having a warrant.” But there are exceptions to that general rule, she continued, including “the need to provide an occupant with emergency aid.”