New York Judge Dismisses Texas Challenge to the State’s Abortion Shield Law

What happened

• A New York state court, in Ulster County, dismissed a legal challenge brought by Office of the Attorney General of Texas (Texas) that sought to enforce a civil judgment of more than $100,000 against Dr. Margaret Carpenter (a doctor based in New Paltz, NY). The judgment was originally obtained in Texas for her alleged prescription of abortion pills via telemedicine to a Texas resident. AP News+4The Texas Tribune+4State Court Report+4

• The procedural posture: Texas asked the Ulster County clerk to register (“domesticate”) the Texas judgment in New York so that it could be enforced there. The clerk, Taylor Bruck, refused, citing New York’s 2023 shield law that limits cooperation with out-of-state legal actions regarding reproductive health services legal in New York. State Court Report+2KFF Health News+2

• The judge, David Gandin (Justice in the New York Supreme Court, Ulster County), ruled that:

  • The doctor’s actions were “legal in New York” and fell “squarely within the definition of ‘legally protected health activity’” under New York’s shield law. State Court Report+1

  • Because New York law prohibits state/local officials from using resources to assist out-of-state efforts to penalize providers for such services, the clerk’s refusal complied with the law. KFF Health News+1

  • The court did not resolve the constitutional full-faith-and-credit argument raised by Texas, because that argument was not properly raised in the petition. State Court Report+1

---

🔍 Why it matters

• Interstate conflict: This case is a prominent example of the emerging “inter-jurisdictional abortion wars” post-Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022). States with protective laws (like New York) are asserting that they will not assist in enforcement of another state’s abortion-related judgments when the care was legal in the home state. State Court Report+1

• Shield law precedent: New York’s shield law was untested until now, and this decision constitutes a first major threshold ruling underscoring that a provider lawfully operating in-state is insulated from another state’s civil liability—at least in terms of enforcement in New York. KFF Health News

• Full Faith and Credit implications: Texas argued that New York’s refusal violated the U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith & Credit Clause (which generally requires states to honor each other’s judicial decisions). The New York court avoided ruling on that constitutional question, so a broader national precedent remains unresolved. State Court Report+1

• Provider risk & telemedicine: The case signals to abortion-care providers, especially those using telemedicine across state lines, that state protections (such as shield laws) are increasingly significant. It also raises questions about liability, where a provider in one state supplies care to someone in a different state with stricter laws.

---

✅ Current outcome & next steps

• Outcome: The Texas petition was dismissed; the New York clerk was legally justified under New York law in refusing to file the Texas judgment.

• Appeal potential: Texas has a window to appeal, and this case may eventually move up through higher courts (and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court) given the unresolved constitutional issues. Times Union

• Broader attention: Other states with shield laws and tele-health provisions are likely watching closely; more cases are expected that test how protective laws hold up against out-of-state enforcement efforts. State Court Report+1