New York Judge Dismisses Texas Challenge to Abortion Shield Law

Texas Attorney General’s Lawsuit Rejected

A New York judge has dismissed a landmark lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, marking the first direct legal clash between conservative states and abortion shield laws designed to protect telemedicine providers.
Paxton sought to enforce a $113,000 Texas judgment against Dr. Margaret Carpenter, a New York physician accused of prescribing abortion pills to a Texas patient in violation of Texas law.

On Friday, Judge David M. Gandin of Ulster County ruled that Paxton’s case “fails to set forth allegations sufficient to make out a claim of a violation of lawful procedure or an error of law.”
Because Dr. Carpenter’s medical actions were legal in New York, the judge determined they were fully protected under the state’s Abortion Shield Law.

“Her activities were the precise type of conduct this statute was designed to protect,” Judge Gandin wrote in the opinion.

What Shield Laws Do — and Why They Matter

New York’s shield law, like those in roughly 20 states, prevents authorities from cooperating with out-of-state prosecutions targeting abortion providers.
The statutes bar state officials from honoring subpoenas, extradition requests, or civil judgments tied to reproductive-health services that are legal in their home state.

In this case, Ulster County Clerk Taylor Bruck had refused to process Paxton’s filing earlier this year, citing the shield law. The clerk’s decision became the target of Paxton’s lawsuit, which argued that the refusal violated procedural obligations and the U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause.

The Judge’s Reasoning

Judge Gandin dismissed the procedural complaint and sidestepped the constitutional question.
He ruled that because Paxton did not formally request a declaration that New York’s shield law was unconstitutional, the case could not proceed on that basis.

The decision also rendered moot an attempt by New York Attorney General Letitia James to intervene, as no constitutional challenge was actively before the court.

Legal observers note that the constitutional issue — whether one state can refuse to enforce another’s judgment — could resurface on appeal.

Reactions From Both Sides

• Steven Aden, chief legal officer of Americans United for Life, called the ruling “predictable,” saying New York is “determined to shield abortionists operating illegally in other states.”
  He indicated Texas is likely to appeal.

• John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life, said the standoff between “pro-life and pro-abortion states” is only beginning.

• Andrew G. Celli Jr., attorney for Clerk Bruck, praised the decision:

  “The judge faithfully applied New York law as intended — to protect in-state practitioners from out-of-state punishment.”

A Looming Constitutional Battle

The case has drawn national attention as a potential constitutional test of how far shield laws can go in protecting abortion access after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
Experts suggest that appellate courts — and possibly the Supreme Court — may eventually decide whether one state can nullify another’s civil penalties related to abortion.

For now, New York’s ruling reaffirms the state’s commitment to safeguarding reproductive-health providers operating legally within its borders — even when their patients live in states with bans.