In a dramatic escalation of the national battle over abortion rights, New York Attorney General Letitia James has stepped into a high-stakes legal fight with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, setting the stage for a precedent-shaping showdown over whether states can enforce abortion bans beyond their own borders. The clash, which centers on New York’s shield law and Texas’s aggressive efforts to prosecute out-of-state abortion providers, could reverberate far beyond the two states, potentially redrawing the legal landscape for reproductive rights across the country.
The dispute began in December 2024, when Texas authorities sued Dr. Margaret Daley Carpenter, a New York-based physician, for mailing abortion pills to a pregnant woman in Collin County, Texas. Under Texas law, mailing abortion medication into the state is strictly prohibited except in rare medical emergencies. When Dr. Carpenter failed to respond to the lawsuit, a Texas court issued a default judgment in February 2025, ordering her to pay $100,000 in civil penalties, $12,400 in attorney’s fees, and $819.59 in filing costs—a total of $113,219.59. The court also permanently barred Carpenter from prescribing abortion-inducing drugs to Texans and from practicing medicine in Texas without a license. The court’s findings were stark: it ruled that Carpenter had violated the Texas Medical Practice Act and the Texas Health and Safety Code by practicing medicine without a Texas license, and that “an unborn child died as a result of these violations.”
But enforcing that judgment proved to be a challenge. In March 2025, Texas sought to collect the penalty by filing the judgment in New York, where Carpenter resides. Acting Ulster County Clerk Taylor Bruck refused to enforce the Texas order, citing New York Executive Law § 837-X—commonly known as the shield law. This law protects providers of gender-affirming or reproductive care, including abortion, from out-of-state legal actions when their services are legal in New York. The shield law blocks public officials from enforcing out-of-state subpoenas, judgments, arrests, or extraditions against them, making New York a sanctuary for reproductive healthcare providers.
Texas responded by suing Bruck in Ulster County Supreme Court, seeking a writ of mandamus—a court order to compel the clerk to perform what Texas claims is a mandatory duty under New York law. The lawsuit, filed on July 25, 2025, argues that New York’s shield law does not specifically direct the clerk to reject the filing, and that Bruck’s refusal was therefore not justified. Texas’s legal team, led by the Dhillon Law Group, faced its own hurdles: their lead attorney, Todd Dickerson, was ineligible to practice in New York due to state licensing rules. On September 8, Josiah Contarino of Dhillon Law, a member of the New York Bar, filed a Notice of Appearance as counsel for Texas, while also seeking permission for two Texas attorneys to appear “pro hac vice”—for this case only.
The legal wrangling quickly spilled into the public arena. On September 8, 2025, Letitia James announced her office’s intervention in the lawsuit, vowing to defend the constitutionality of New York’s shield law. In a strongly worded statement, James declared, “I am stepping in to defend the integrity of our laws and our courts against this blatant overreach. Texas has no authority in New York, and no power to impose its cruel abortion ban here. Our shield law exists to protect New Yorkers from out-of-state extremists, and New York will always stand strong as a safe haven for health care and freedom of choice. I will fight every last attempt to roll back our rights and turn back the clock on reproductive freedom.”
Paxton, for his part, fired back with characteristic fervor. In a statement to the press, he insisted, “Margaret Carpenter ended the life of a baby in Texas, hurt a Texas woman, and broke Texas laws. No matter where she hides, our pro-life laws will be enforced, and justice will be served.” On social media, Paxton went even further, calling James “a lawless abortionist who is obsessed with killing babies and weaponizing her office for her political career,” and vowing, “I will defeat her in court.”
The stakes of this legal battle are enormous. According to reporting by NEXSTAR and The Dallas Morning News, the case could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court, testing the limits of states’ rights in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade. The central question: can a state like Texas enforce its abortion laws against providers in states where abortion remains legal, or does a shield law like New York’s offer absolute protection?
The answer could have sweeping consequences. With Texas’s strict abortion ban in place, residents seeking abortions have been left with few options: travel out of state for care, or receive abortion pills by mail from states where the procedure is legal. Texas lawmakers and law enforcement have sought to clamp down on the mailing of abortion pills, most recently with House Bill 7, which bans the manufacture, distribution, and provision of abortion-inducing drugs within Texas and allows private citizens to sue violators—including out-of-state individuals. This private enforcement model mirrors Texas’s controversial “heartbeat law,” which lets citizens file civil lawsuits against abortion providers.
The ongoing legal saga has also raised thorny questions about the relationship between state laws and the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, which generally requires states to recognize each other’s judicial decisions. Paxton’s office has argued that states must honor each other’s “judicial enactments,” while James’s office maintains that New York’s shield law is a valid exercise of state sovereignty in protecting its residents and legal medical practices.
Both sides are gearing up for a protracted fight. New York’s response to the Texas lawsuit is due by September 19, 2025, with the next court date set for September 24. Legal observers say the outcome could set a national precedent, either emboldening states to reach across borders to enforce their abortion bans or affirming the right of states like New York to serve as sanctuaries for reproductive healthcare providers.
As the legal teams prepare their arguments, the broader political and social implications are hard to ignore. Supporters of reproductive rights see New York’s shield law as a crucial bulwark against what they view as overreach by anti-abortion states. “Our shield law exists to protect New Yorkers from out-of-state extremists,” James emphasized, framing the case as a defense of personal freedom and medical privacy. Meanwhile, anti-abortion advocates in Texas and beyond are watching closely, hoping the courts will affirm their right to pursue alleged violators wherever they may be found.
If the courts ultimately side with Texas, doctors and providers in states with shield laws could face the risk of lawsuits and financial penalties for aiding patients from states with abortion bans. If New York prevails, it could solidify the legal basis for other states to enact similar protections, creating a patchwork of laws that reflect the deepening divide over abortion in America.
For now, all eyes are on the upcoming court dates in Ulster County, where the future of interstate abortion access—and the boundaries of state power—hang in the balance.
