The Valley Viewpoint

When a town’s own former attorney files suit against the Town Supervisor, every taxpayer should stop and ask one simple question:

What is going on in Red Hook?

Albert Trezza, who previously served as Red Hook’s Town Attorney and knows exactly how municipal government is supposed to operate, has now filed a lawsuit alleging that Supervisor Robert McKeon improperly retained outside law firms to handle the Town’s battle with the Red Hook Boat Club—without the authorization required from the Town Board. According to the lawsuit, hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars may have been spent on outside counsel without the legal approvals required under New York law.

Think about that for a moment.

This isn’t political rhetoric coming from an opponent. It isn’t campaign season finger-pointing.

These allegations are coming from a former Town Attorney who understands municipal law and how local government is supposed to function.

If these allegations prove to be true, this isn’t simply poor judgment. It’s a serious challenge to the very principles of transparency, accountability, and fiscal oversight that taxpayers expect from their elected officials.

The irony is hard to ignore.

The Town’s pursuit of the Red Hook Boat Club has already been mired in controversy. Residents have packed public hearings, overwhelmingly opposing the use of eminent domain to seize private property for a proposed waterfront park. The Town has already suffered significant legal setbacks, including a court decision throwing out key zoning actions because officials failed to comply with New York’s environmental review requirements.

Now taxpayers are learning that another lawsuit has emerged—this one questioning whether the Town even had the legal authority to hire the lawyers leading this fight.

Government cannot demand that citizens follow the law while treating legal requirements as optional when they’re inconvenient.

The rules exist for a reason.

Town Boards authorize expenditures. They provide oversight. They ensure that one elected official cannot simply decide to spend taxpayer money without accountability. Those aren’t technicalities—they’re safeguards that protect every resident.

The question now isn’t simply whether Red Hook should have pursued the Boat Club.

The question is whether this entire process has ignored the very laws that govern local government itself.

How much has this fight cost taxpayers?

How much more will it cost?

How many outside law firms have been retained?

And who approved the bills?

These are fair questions. In fact, they’re questions every taxpayer should be asking.

Regardless of where anyone stands on the future of the Red Hook Boat Club, no one should support a government that appears willing to bypass established legal procedures in pursuit of its own agenda.

Public office is a public trust.

Taxpayer dollars deserve accountability.

And when a former Town Attorney is the one sounding the alarm, the public shouldn’t dismiss it—they should demand answers.

I’ve said for years that Chief Justice John Roberts seems more interested in shielding the Supreme Court’s image than upholding the Constitution. His latest opinion on birthright citizenship doesn’t just reinforce that belief—it underscores it.

Conservatives have seen this pattern before.

In 2012, Roberts cast the deciding vote to save Obamacare. Congress repeatedly insisted the individual mandate was not a tax. Roberts effectively replied, “Maybe not politically, but I’ll call it one constitutionally.” That wasn’t interpretation—it was judicial rescue.

Now he’s done it again with birthright citizenship.

Instead of confronting what the Fourteenth Amendment actually says—especially the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”—Roberts leaned on more than a century of precedent and declared the matter largely settled. But precedent is not a substitute for constitutional meaning.

The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment chose their words deliberately. They did not say every child born on American soil is automatically a citizen. They included a qualifier. The real question is what that qualifier meant at the time it was written—not how courts have chosen to interpret it since.

Reasonable people can disagree about that meaning. But they deserve a Court willing to engage the Constitution honestly, not one that reflexively preserves the status quo to avoid controversy.

That’s the core problem with John Roberts’ tenure as Chief Justice. Time and again, when faced with decisions that could reshape American law, he opts for institutional preservation over constitutional clarity.

Whether it was reworking Obamacare to keep it alive or refusing to seriously revisit the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause, the pattern is unmistakable.

The Supreme Court’s duty is not to protect its reputation. It is not to sidestep political fallout. It is not to cling to precedent at all costs.

Its duty is to interpret and apply the Constitution faithfully.

History will judge John Roberts. But from where I stand, he has too often acted as the Court’s defender when he should have been the Constitution’s guardian.

That distinction matters—not just in Washington, but here in the Hudson Valley and across the country, where Americans rely on judges to follow the law as written, not as they wish it were.

If you think government has finally figured out how to make healthcare more affordable, think again.

California lawmakers have approved a proposal that would increase taxes on private health insurance plans to help fund the state’s expanding healthcare obligations. The practical effect? Higher premiums for employers, employees, and families already struggling to afford coverage. The proposal now awaits Governor Gavin Newsom’s signature.

Let’s call this what it is: another example of government solving one problem by making another one worse.

For years we’ve heard promises that expanding government healthcare programs would reduce costs. Instead, taxpayers and those with employer-sponsored insurance continue to shoulder a larger share of the burden. California’s latest move shifts billions of dollars in additional costs onto businesses and working families who purchase private insurance.

If this sounds familiar, it should.

Here in New York, employers already face some of the highest healthcare costs in the nation. Businesses across the Hudson Valley continue to struggle with double-digit premium increases, rising prescription drug costs, and growing regulatory mandates. Every additional dollar spent on health insurance is a dollar that can’t be invested in wages, hiring, equipment, or expanding a business.

As someone who has spent decades in Human Resources negotiating health plans, I can tell you firsthand that employers desperately want to provide quality benefits. But every year it becomes harder to absorb these increases without passing costs along to employees or reducing benefits.

The California proposal should serve as a cautionary tale—not a blueprint.

Government cannot continue treating private health insurance as an unlimited revenue source. Eventually, businesses reach a breaking point. Small employers drop coverage altogether, employees pay more out of pocket, and taxpayers ultimately end up footing an even larger bill.

The Hudson Valley should pay close attention.

Many of the same policy ideas that begin in Sacramento eventually find their way to Albany. Whether it’s new taxes, healthcare mandates, or expanding government programs without sustainable funding, New York has often followed California’s lead.

Healthcare reform should focus on reducing costs, increasing competition, improving transparency, and expanding consumer choice—not imposing new taxes that simply make insurance more expensive.

Working families don’t need another healthcare tax.

They need affordable healthcare.

There are moments when politics should stop and humanity should take over.

Watching Jessica Gorman speak about the murder of her 18-year-old daughter, Sheridan, isn’t watching a political debate. It’s watching a mother relive the worst day of her life.

Sheridan left for college with the same hopes every parent has for their child—to learn, to grow, to build a future. Instead, according to prosecutors, she was shot and killed in what her parents have described as a preventable tragedy.

Jessica Gorman isn’t asking for sympathy. She’s asking for accountability.

As I listened to her speak, I couldn’t help but think of my own family.

More than twenty years ago, my 17-year-old niece, Elizabeth Butler, was murdered by a man who was in this country illegally. She was just beginning her life, filled with the same hopes and dreams that every young person should have. Instead, our family was left to bury a child and live with a loss that never truly fades.

That experience has shaped how I view this issue ever since.

This isn’t about condemning the millions of people who have come to America legally, worked hard, obeyed our laws, and become valued members of our communities. They deserve our respect.

It is about recognizing that government has a fundamental obligation to enforce our immigration laws and to protect innocent people. When that responsibility breaks down, the consequences are measured not in statistics or political talking points, but in shattered families.

Here in the Hudson Valley, we shouldn’t dismiss Sheridan’s murder as something that happened hundreds of miles away. Every parent, every grandparent, and every community has a stake in public safety. We all expect that when our children leave home for school, work, or an evening with friends, they’ll come back.

No policy debate will ever bring Sheridan back.

Nothing will erase the pain Jessica Gorman carries. And nothing will ever bring back my 17-year-old niece, Elizabeth Butler.

For Jessica, for my family, and for every family that has endured this kind of unimaginable loss, we owe them more than condolences. We owe them the courage to have an honest conversation about public safety, immigration enforcement, and the government’s responsibility to protect innocent lives.

The tears of a grieving mother should never be dismissed as politics.

They should be heard as a call to do better.

For years, many of us have been called intolerant simply for stating what generations of Americans understood without controversy: girls’ sports should be for girls.

Today, the United States Supreme Court affirmed that common sense.

In a landmark decision, the Court ruled that states may reserve girls’ and women’s athletic teams for biological females, holding that doing so is fully consistent with both Title IX and the Constitution.

This wasn’t a victory against anyone. It was a victory for the young women Title IX was designed to protect.

When Congress passed Title IX more than 50 years ago, it recognized that female athletes deserved equal opportunities—not just in theory, but in reality. That law transformed American sports, opening doors to scholarships, championships, and dreams that had previously been closed.

Those opportunities only exist if the playing field is fair.

The Court recognized what parents, coaches, and female athletes have been saying all along: biology matters in sports. Strength, speed, endurance, and size are real advantages. Ignoring those differences doesn’t create equality—it undermines it.

For too long, many elected officials, school administrators, and athletic organizations were afraid to say what they knew to be true. Instead, they chose ideology over common sense and expected female athletes to bear the consequences.

The Supreme Court refused to do that.

The justices made clear that protecting competitive fairness and athlete safety are not only legitimate goals—they are compelling ones. They also rejected the notion that schools must conduct impossible case-by-case evaluations to determine who should compete in girls’ sports.

Here in the Hudson Valley, where our communities rally around high school athletics, this decision provides long-overdue clarity. Parents, coaches, athletic directors, and school boards now have clear constitutional guidance.

Reasonable people can disagree on many aspects of the broader debate surrounding gender identity. But this case was about something much more specific: whether the opportunities created for women under Title IX should remain protected.

The Supreme Court answered with a resounding yes.

Sometimes leadership means standing firm when it’s unpopular. Sometimes it means defending reality even when doing so invites criticism.

Today, the highest court in the land reminded us that equal opportunity for women requires protecting the spaces created specifically for them.

That’s not discrimination.

That’s exactly what Title IX was intended to accomplish.

The U.S. Supreme Court today delivered one of the most significant constitutional rulings in decades, holding in a 6-3 decision that children born in the United States are citizens at birth—even if their parents are in the country illegally or only temporarily. In doing so, the Court struck down President Trump’s Executive Order that attempted to end birthright citizenship through executive action.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, didn’t mince words. He concluded that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has always meant exactly what it says. If you’re born in the United States and subject to our laws, you’re a citizen. The Court relied heavily on its 128-year-old precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, reaffirming that birthright citizenship is rooted not only in the Constitution but in more than a century of settled law.

But don’t make the mistake of thinking this was an easy case. The dissent raises arguments that deserve serious consideration.

Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the majority got the history wrong. His position is that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was never intended to mean simply being physically present in the United States or being required to obey our laws. Instead, he argues it means owing complete political allegiance to the United States. If a child’s parents remain citizens of another nation—particularly if they are here illegally or only temporarily—that child, in his view, does not satisfy the constitutional requirement for automatic citizenship.

Justice Samuel Alito reached much the same conclusion. He argued that the majority expanded the Fourteenth Amendment beyond what Congress intended after the Civil War and effectively read language into the Constitution that simply isn’t there. In his view, whether birthright citizenship should extend to children of illegal immigrants is a question for the American people and Congress—not the courts.

Here’s what I find interesting.

Both sides relied on history. Both claimed the Framers were on their side. Both cited Reconstruction-era debates, English common law, and more than a century of precedent. That’s what makes constitutional interpretation so fascinating—and so difficult.

The majority says the Constitution settled this question in 1868 and that the Court settled it again in 1898. The dissent says we’ve been reading those decisions too broadly ever since.

Reasonable people can disagree on which interpretation is correct.

What cannot be disputed is this: the President cannot rewrite the Constitution with the stroke of a pen. Whether you supported President Trump’s Executive Order or opposed it, the Constitution establishes a process for changing constitutional rights. That process is called a constitutional amendment—not an executive order.

This decision will undoubtedly frustrate many Americans who believe our immigration system is broken. And frankly, they’re right about one thing: Congress has failed to fix it.

But immigration policy and constitutional citizenship are not the same issue.

If the American people want to change birthright citizenship, they’ll have to persuade Congress and ultimately the states to amend the Constitution. Until then, the Fourteenth Amendment remains the law of the land.

That’s not politics.

That’s constitutional government.

There are moments when government forgets that it serves the people—not the other way around. The Red Hook Boat Club controversy is one of those moments.

From the very beginning, I called this what it was: an abuse of power.

Supervisor Robert McKeon wasn’t interested in finding a lawful solution. He was determined to seize the Red Hook Boat Club, and everything that followed appeared designed to justify a decision that had already been made. The courts have now repeatedly rejected key parts of that process, reinforcing what many in this community believed all along: government cannot manipulate the rules simply because it wants a different outcome.

This wasn’t leadership. It was bullying.

Eminent domain is one of the most extraordinary powers government possesses. It exists for rare and compelling public purposes—not as a weapon to force citizens off their property because elected officials believe they know better.

Every court setback has come with another bill for taxpayers to pay. Every legal defeat has further eroded public confidence in Town Hall. And every appeal raises the same question: How much more taxpayer money will be spent defending a process the courts continue to reject?

Enough.

The rule of law applies to everyone—including those who hold public office. When government cuts corners, ignores legal safeguards, and dismisses the voices of its own citizens, the courts have both the authority and the responsibility to intervene. That is exactly what has happened here.

Supervisor McKeon should end this failed eminent domain crusade. Stop wasting taxpayer dollars. Respect private property rights. And apologize to the people of Red Hook for dragging their community through a costly, unnecessary fight that never should have happened.

Because when government becomes the bully, it is the courts—and ultimately the people—who must remind it that no one is above the law.

There are moments in life when you meet someone who quietly changes the way you see the world.

That’s what Lauren Shields did for me.

I first met Lauren after she addressed the audience at a naturalization ceremony. New citizens had gathered to celebrate becoming Americans, and Lauren stood before them and shared her remarkable story. She didn’t ask for sympathy. She didn’t dwell on her own suffering. She spoke about gratitude, resilience, and the precious gift of life.

I remember thinking, “This young woman is extraordinary.”

Not long afterward, Uncle Mike and I had the privilege of interviewing Lauren and her wonderful mother, Jeanne, on our radio show. We talked about her incredible journey—a heart transplant at just nine years old, a kidney transplant years later donated by her own mother, and her tireless mission to encourage others to become organ donors.

By the end of that interview, Lauren had accomplished something she had probably done thousands of times before.

She changed a mind.

Mine.

Because of Lauren, I became an organ donor.

That was Lauren’s gift. She never preached. She inspired. She took unimaginable hardship and transformed it into hope for complete strangers.

Her advocacy led to Lauren’s Law, legislation that dramatically increased New York’s organ donor registry by requiring every applicant for a driver’s license to make a conscious decision about organ donation. That simple change has helped save countless lives—and will continue to do so for generations.

Today, I am absolutely heartbroken to learn of Lauren’s passing.

My heart goes out to Jeanne and to everyone who loved this remarkable young woman. While her life was far too short, her legacy is immeasurable. Somewhere today, someone is alive because Lauren refused to let her own struggles define her and instead dedicated her life to helping others.

Every time I look at my driver’s license, I’ll think of Lauren.

And I suspect I’m not the only one.

Rest in peace, Lauren. Thank you for changing my life, for inspiring Uncle Mike and me, and for leaving behind a legacy that will endure every time someone checks “Yes” and gives another person the gift of life.

For years, a cottage industry of litigation has thrived on the idea that a courtroom can overrule the findings of the nation’s leading scientists. Last week, the United States Supreme Court reminded everyone that isn’t how our system is supposed to work.

In a decisive 7-2 ruling, the Court held that federal law preempts state-law claims seeking warning labels that conflict with federal regulatory determinations regarding Roundup. The decision is expected to significantly curb thousands of lawsuits built on the argument that manufacturers should have been forced to provide warnings the federal government never required.

This case was never just about Roundup.

It was about whether trial lawyers could persuade juries to substitute emotion for science and billion-dollar verdicts for federal law.

The Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly reviewed glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, and has concluded that it does not require the cancer warning demanded in these lawsuits. Yet despite those findings, litigation continued, producing enormous verdicts and creating uncertainty for businesses, farmers, manufacturers, and consumers alike.

The Supreme Court drew a line.

Federal regulators exist for a reason. They review mountains of scientific evidence, not just the testimony presented by opposing experts during a trial. If every state—or every jury—could impose its own scientific standard, no business could know which rules actually apply.

Here in the Hudson Valley, that matters.

Our farmers, landscapers, municipalities, and businesses depend on consistent national standards. Whether it’s pesticides, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, or countless other federally regulated products, companies deserve one set of rules—not fifty different interpretations driven by litigation.

None of this means products should escape accountability when they cause harm. Companies that conceal evidence or violate federal law should absolutely be held responsible.

But there is an important distinction between holding companies accountable and allowing lawyers to rewrite science in pursuit of massive settlements.

The Supreme Court recognized that distinction.

The decision is a victory not just for one company, but for regulatory consistency, scientific integrity, and the principle that federal law still means something.

Sometimes the most important Supreme Court decisions aren’t the ones that dominate cable news.

Sometimes they’re the ones that quietly remind us that facts should matter more than fear—and that lawyers, no matter how persuasive, don’t get to rewrite science.

The Hudson Valley should be paying close attention to what is happening in New York City.

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration could end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian migrants, New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani responded by saying it was “not something we will ever accept.”

Think about that for a moment.

Not “we disagree.”

Not “we’ll challenge it through the courts.”

Not “Congress should change the law.”

“We will never accept it.”

That statement should concern every American, regardless of political party. Because if elected officials get to decide which Supreme Court rulings they will honor, then our constitutional system begins to unravel.

Here in the Hudson Valley, we don’t have the luxury of picking and choosing which laws apply to us. Our police officers can’t decide which court decisions they’ll enforce. Our judges can’t ignore rulings they dislike. Our taxpayers can’t decide which taxes they’ll pay because they disagree with Albany.

Why should politicians be any different?

This isn’t really about immigration.

It’s about whether we still believe in the rule of law.

Many of the same political leaders who insist that no one is above the law seem perfectly comfortable dismissing the nation’s highest court when its decisions conflict with their political agenda. That’s not constitutional government. That’s selective obedience.

And don’t think this mindset will stop at the borders of New York City.

The political ideas born in the five boroughs have a way of making their way north. We’ve seen it before. Policies that begin as “big city solutions” eventually arrive in communities throughout the Hudson Valley—from policing and criminal justice to housing, education, and immigration.

If leaders are willing to ignore Supreme Court rulings today, what happens tomorrow?

Will county executives decide which federal immigration laws they’ll recognize?

Will town supervisors ignore court rulings they find politically inconvenient?

Will school districts decide constitutional rights only apply when they agree with them?

Once respect for the rule of law becomes optional, there is no logical stopping point.

The genius of our constitutional republic has never been that everyone agrees with every decision. It’s that we accept the authority of the process, even when we don’t like the outcome. Elections have consequences. Court decisions have consequences. If we don’t like either, we have lawful ways to change them.

That’s called democracy.

The alternative is government by ideology, where laws mean whatever those in power want them to mean.

The Hudson Valley has enough challenges without importing that philosophy.

Whether you’re a Republican, Democrat, Independent, or somewhere in between, this shouldn’t be a partisan issue. It should be an American one.

Because the day Supreme Court decisions become optional is the day the rule of law becomes negotiable.

And once the rule of law is negotiable, everyone’s rights—not just those we happen to agree with—are at risk.

Another day, another federal judge blocking another action of a sitting president.

This week, a Massachusetts federal judge permanently barred the Trump administration from enforcing an executive order requiring documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. The judge ruled that the requirement was unconstitutional and that the President lacked the authority to impose it unilaterally.

Whether you support proof of citizenship to vote isn’t the only issue here. A larger question continues to loom over our country: Have federal judges become the final policymakers on nearly every major issue facing America?

Immigration. Energy. Education. Healthcare. Environmental regulations. National security. Elections.

Increasingly, it seems that every significant policy decision is met with a lawsuit, followed by a single federal district judge issuing a nationwide injunction that effectively halts the agenda of an elected president. Americans don’t vote for district judges, yet their decisions often carry more immediate impact than those made by the officials voters actually elected.

The judiciary serves a vital constitutional purpose. Courts exist to interpret the law and protect constitutional rights. But many Americans are beginning to wonder whether some judges have moved beyond interpreting the law and into making public policy from the bench.

If Congress believes proof of citizenship should be required to vote, it should pass legislation. If it doesn’t, then the American people have every right to hold their elected representatives accountable at the ballot box.

But when virtually every major policy debate ends up being decided first in a federal courtroom rather than through the legislative process, confidence in both our government and our judiciary begins to erode.

Here in the Hudson Valley, voters may disagree about election laws, but they generally agree on one thing: they expect the people they elect—not unelected judges—to have the primary responsibility for shaping public policy within the limits of the Constitution.

Our constitutional system depends on checks and balances. It was never intended to become a system where one federal judge can repeatedly override the decisions of an elected administration before the democratic process has had a chance to play out.

That isn’t just a debate about election law.

It’s a debate about who governs America.

Tuesday’s primary elections in New York weren’t just another chapter in the state’s political calendar. They may have marked a turning point in the battle over who will define the future of the Democratic Party—and they should serve as a warning sign for Hudson Valley Democrats who have long tried to straddle the line between moderation and the party’s increasingly dominant progressive wing.

Across New York City, candidates aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America scored significant victories, defeating several establishment-backed Democrats. Even longtime party leaders found themselves watching as the political ground shifted beneath them. The results exposed a growing divide between traditional Democrats and an increasingly organized progressive movement that believes the party hasn’t gone far enough. (Reuters)

Whether you celebrate those victories or fear them, one thing is difficult to deny: the Democratic Party is undergoing a profound identity crisis—and Hudson Valley Democrats are increasingly caught in the middle, often unwilling or unable to clearly define where they stand.

For years, party leaders often attempted to satisfy both moderates and progressives. But history has a way of showing that movements rarely remain balanced forever. Eventually, one side gains momentum, and the center begins to disappear. In many cases, Hudson Valley Democrats have avoided taking firm positions, opting instead for political caution that now risks leaving them out of step with both sides.

That’s a development Hudson Valley voters should watch carefully.

Many of the policies now championed by New York City’s progressive wing rarely stay confined to the five boroughs. Albany has a long history of exporting ideas statewide, whether they involve criminal justice, energy policy, housing, environmental regulations, education, or taxes. What begins as a New York City debate often becomes a Hudson Valley reality—and too often, local Democratic leaders have gone along with these shifts without fully considering their impact on suburban and rural communities.

Our communities have already experienced the consequences of one-size-fits-all policymaking.

Families struggle with affordability. Businesses continue to wrestle with rising costs and regulations. Local governments face increasing mandates from Albany while taxpayers shoulder the bill. Many residents simply want practical government focused on public safety, economic growth, quality schools, and fiscal responsibility—not ideological battles. Yet Hudson Valley Democrats have frequently supported policies that critics argue contribute to these very challenges, raising questions about whether they are truly representing local priorities.

The larger question isn’t whether Democrats should be more progressive or more moderate. That’s for Democratic voters to decide.

The question for all New Yorkers is whether there remains room for political moderation at all—and whether Hudson Valley Democrats are willing to defend it, or if they will continue to follow the direction set by party leadership in New York City and Albany.

Healthy political parties need debate. They need competing ideas. They need leaders willing to challenge their own side when necessary. When any political movement begins rewarding ideological purity over practical problem-solving, governing becomes more difficult. The concern for many voters is that Hudson Valley Democrats have been reluctant to push back, even when policies may not align with the needs of their constituents.

The Hudson Valley has traditionally rewarded candidates who solve problems rather than generate headlines. Voters here tend to be pragmatic. They care less about political labels and more about whether their communities are becoming safer, more affordable, and better places to raise a family.

As New York Democrats redefine themselves, Hudson Valley voters should pay close attention—and Hudson Valley Democrats should be prepared to answer difficult questions about where they stand. Today’s primary battles in New York City may become tomorrow’s legislative agenda in Albany.

And whether you’re a Democrat, Republican, or Independent, that conversation affects every one of us.