KINGSTONÂ – A state Supreme Court justice in Ulster County has dismissed a legal challenge by the state of Texas that sought to enforce a six-figure judgment against a New York doctor accused of prescribing abortion medication to a Texas patient.
Justice David M. Gandin ruled Friday that Taylor Bruck, the acting Ulster County clerk, acted lawfully when he refused to file a $113,000 default judgment issued by a Texas court against Dr. Margaret Daley Carpenter, a New Paltz-based physician.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had twice sent the judgment and a court summons to Bruck’s office, ordering that it be filed in New York state court. Twice, Bruck refused, citing the state’s telehealth shield law, which bars public officials from aiding out-of-state investigations or civil actions targeting reproductive health care that is legal in New York.
That prompted Paxton, in July, to file a petition seeking a writ of mandamus – a court order that would compel Bruck to file the Texas ruling. The petition named Bruck as its defendant. Last month, New York Attorney General Letitia James said she would intervene in the case under a section of state Executive Law that allows her office to defend the constitutionality of state laws.
Gandin found that Carpenter’s actions were legal under New York law and protected by the state’s statute.
“Dr. Carpenter’s conduct falls squarely within the definition of âlegally protected health activity,'” Gandin wrote in his decision, calling Carpenter’s work “the precise type of conduct (the shield law) was designed to protect.”
Bruck said the ruling affirmed what his office believed from the outset.
“The decision confirms what we had assumed all along – that we should not have filed the Texas judgment,” Bruck said in an interview Friday. “The law seemed obvious to us, but since it was untested, certain people had questions about it. So it was very refreshing to read the judge’s decision.”
Paxton’s attempt to reach across state lines marked the first major legal showdown over the constitutionality of telehealth shield laws, which have proliferated in states where abortion remains protected since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. Gov. Kathy Hochul signed New York’s law in June 2023 and earlier this year approved another measure allowing New York doctors to prescribe abortion medication to out-of-state patients anonymously.
Under the law, state and local employees – including county clerks – are prohibited from using “time, moneys, facilities, property, equipment, personnel or other resources” in connection with out-of-state proceedings that seek to impose civil or criminal penalties for reproductive care that is legal in New York. Gandin’s decision is the first time a New York court has applied the shield law in an interstate challenge.
Paxton argued that New York’s law violates the U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, which generally requires states to recognize the judicial decisions of other states, and the Extradition Clause, which mandates the return of individuals charged with crimes to the state where the alleged crime occurred. Texas officials also contended that Bruck was obligated under New York’s civil procedure rules to accept the filing.
Gandin disagreed, finding that the shield law “specifically directed” local officials not to cooperate with such efforts and that even processing the filing would itself constitute a prohibited use of county resources. He concluded that Texas failed to show any “clear legal right” to compel Bruck to act.
Gandin also denied the New York attorney general’s motion to intervene, noting that Texas’ petition did not raise a valid constitutional challenge.
“This legal challenge was unwarranted from the start. Dr. Carpenter provided legal, compassionate care, and New York’s Shield Law exists to protect providers from politically motivated attacks like this,” Ulster County Executive Jen Metzger said in a statement. “Acting County Clerk Taylor Bruck acted in accordance with the law, and I want to thank Judge Gandin for this fair and impartial decision.”
“We’re fortunate to live in New York state and have a Senate and Assembly that had the foresight to pass the shield law,” Bruck said. “In this first test case, it worked exactly as intended.”
Texas officials may appeal the ruling within 30 days. The Texas attorney general’s office did not immediately return a request for comment.
This article originally published at Court rejects Texas bid to enforce abortion ruling in New York.
