On September 8, 2025, a legal showdown erupted between two of America’s most powerful states, as New York Attorney General Letitia James announced a decisive move to block Texas’s attempt to impose its abortion restrictions on New York health care providers. The high-profile clash, which has drawn national attention, centers on whether a state with strict abortion bans can reach across borders to punish providers in states where abortion remains legal—and whether New York’s so-called “shield law” can withstand a constitutional challenge from the Lone Star State.
The dispute began in December 2024, when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued a New York doctor in a Texas court. The doctor, based in Ulster County, New York, had provided telehealth abortion care to a patient in Texas, where abortion is largely banned. The Texas court found in Paxton’s favor, issuing a $113,000 judgment against the New York physician. But when Paxton’s office tried to collect the judgment by filing enforcement papers in Ulster County, the local clerk refused, citing New York’s shield law. That law, passed in 2023 after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, was designed specifically to prevent state and local officials from cooperating with out-of-state prosecutions related to abortion or gender-affirming care.
Frustrated by the rejection, Paxton took the extraordinary step of suing the Ulster County clerk, contending that New York’s refusal to enforce the Texas judgment violates the U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause. According to Paxton, “These abortion drug organizations and radical activists are not above the law, and I have ordered the immediate end of this unlawful conduct. This is a flagrant violation of both state and federal laws, and we are going to do everything in our power to protect mothers and unborn babies.”
New York officials, however, see things quite differently. Attorney General Letitia James, in a fiery statement, 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.”
James’s intervention is more than symbolic. On September 8, she formally notified Ulster County Supreme Court Judge David Gandin that her office would defend the shield law in court, arguing that Texas cannot commandeer New York’s courts to enforce its punitive abortion laws. James emphasized that New York has both the legal right and the responsibility to safeguard its residents, health care providers, and judicial system from what she called “out-of-state overreach.”
At the heart of the conflict is New York’s shield law, which was enacted in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. The law prohibits public officials from enforcing out-of-state subpoenas, judgments, arrests, or extraditions in cases targeting providers of reproductive or gender-affirming care that is legal in New York. It also extends these protections to telehealth providers, a crucial point as more patients seek care across state lines in the post-Roe landscape.
The Texas attorney general’s lawsuit, filed after the Ulster County clerk refused to process the $113,000 judgment, directly challenges the constitutionality of New York’s shield law. Paxton’s office argues that the law undermines the constitutional principle that states must respect each other’s court judgments. In response, James and her allies contend that the shield law is both lawful and necessary to protect New Yorkers from what they see as aggressive attempts by anti-abortion states to export their policies nationwide.
“At a time when reproductive freedom is under unprecedented attack, our state and its leaders must do everything in their power to protect those seeking abortion care and the providers delivering it,” said Robin Chappelle Golston, President of Planned Parenthood Empire State Acts. “We are incredibly fortunate to have an attorney general who embodies this commitment and is a tenacious defender of our freedoms.”
The stakes in this legal battle are high, not just for the individuals involved but for the broader patchwork of abortion laws now taking shape across the United States. Since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in 2022, which overturned federal protections for abortion, states have moved rapidly in opposite directions. Some, like Texas, have enacted sweeping bans and aggressive enforcement mechanisms, while others, like New York, have doubled down on protecting access and shielding providers from out-of-state prosecution.
Legal experts note that the case could set a precedent for how far states can go in enforcing their own laws beyond their borders. The Full Faith and Credit Clause generally requires states to honor the judicial proceedings of other states, but there are exceptions—especially when a judgment violates the public policy of the state where enforcement is sought. New York’s shield law was crafted with this very scenario in mind, aiming to ensure that providers are not punished for offering care that is fully legal in New York, even if it is banned elsewhere.
The Texas attorney general, for his part, has likened the effort to target out-of-state drug dealers sending contraband into Texas. “Texas will not tolerate the murdering of innocent life through illegal drug trafficking,” Paxton said, drawing a sharp analogy between abortion medication and illegal drugs. But advocates for reproductive rights argue that such comparisons are misleading and inflammatory, pointing out that abortion remains a legal medical procedure in New York and that telehealth services are increasingly vital for patients facing barriers to care.
The outcome of the lawsuit could have ripple effects far beyond the two states. If Texas succeeds in forcing New York courts to enforce its abortion judgments, providers in protective states could face mounting legal risks. If New York’s shield law holds, it could serve as a model for other states seeking to protect their residents and providers from external legal threats.
For now, Attorney General Letitia James is making it clear that New York will not back down. “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,” she reiterated. With both sides digging in for what promises to be a landmark legal fight, the eyes of the nation—and the future of cross-state abortion access—hang in the balance.
As the legal proceedings move forward, New Yorkers and Americans across the country are watching closely, keenly aware that the outcome could shape the next chapter in the nation’s ongoing debate over reproductive rights and state sovereignty.
