Texas abortion case rejected as New York clerk refuses to file judgment against Dr Margaret Carpenter

A New York official rejected Texas’s latest attempt to penalise a doctor who allegedly prescribed abortion pills to a Dallas woman - the latest clash in a legal battle expected to make its way to the Supreme Court.

Texas has been seeking to punish New York doctor Margaret Carpenter, who was ordered in February by a Texas judge to pay a fine of more than $100,000 after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) alleged that she violated state law that bars mailing or online prescribing of abortion medication to residents.

When Mr Paxton asked a New York county clerk to formally file that judgment, the clerk refused.

On Monday, that official, acting Ulster County clerk Taylor Bruck, rejected Texas’s second request to file the judgment. Filing the request would break New York’s “shield law,” he said.

“They can send it every day if they want,” Mr Bruck told The Washington Post on Tuesday.

“It won’t change what we’re doing.”

The Texas lawsuit marked one of the first major tests of New York’s shield law, which protects providers who prescribe abortion pills from out-of-state prosecution. New York is one of eight Democratic-led states that have passed such measures since the high court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion in 2022.

Ms Carpenter, who is based in New Paltz, New York, is also at the centre of a criminal case in Louisiana - another novel challenge to the shield law in her state.

Across the country, abortion pills - namely, mifepristone, the first of the typical two-step medication abortion regimen - and shield laws that facilitate their prescription to patients in states where abortion is banned are the focal points of mounting legal battles.

Conservative lawmakers and advocacy groups for years have sought to restrict access to medication abortion, which now accounts for the majority of abortions in the United States.

Neither Ms Carpenter nor Mr Paxton’s office immediately responded to requests for comment on Tuesday.

In March, after Mr Bruck’s first refusal to file the judgment and impose the fine, Mr Paxton said he was “outraged.”

“New York is shredding the Constitution to hide lawbreakers from justice, and it must end,” he said in a statement.

“I will not stop my efforts to enforce Texas’s pro-life laws that protect our unborn children and mothers.”

Texas is among the states, primarily in the South, that most severely restrict abortion, banning the procedure with very few exceptions.

In New York, abortions are legal up to 24 weeks. Lawmakers there have continued to strengthen state law to protect providers and abortion access.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed the state’s shield law in 2023. This year, she moved to enshrine further protections, allowing providers to replace their name with that of their health care practice on abortion pill labels.

Ms Hochul has also refused to comply with Louisiana’s request to extradite Ms Carpenter, again citing the state’s shield law.

In February, after Ms Carpenter did not appear for a hearing in the Texas case, Judge Bryan Gantt ordered the doctor to pay a civil penalty of about $113,000, which included legal fees. He also granted a permanent injunction against Ms Carpenter, prohibiting her from prescribing abortion pills to Texas residents.

Weeks later, Texas asked Ulster County, which contains New Paltz, to file the judgment.

Mr Bruck balked at the request, writing in a March 27 statement that he was abiding by New York’s shield law.

Mr Bruck’s refusal shows the strength of shield laws, though they were untested until now, said Greer Donley, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh.

“The clerk not even entering the case; that stops it before it can even begin, which is fantastic and exactly what the shield laws were supposed to do,” Ms Donley said.

The lack of legal clarity around shield laws could have a chilling effect on providers, as they raise questions about how and where they can prescribe abortion pills, said Daniel Grossman, a professor at the University of California at San Francisco who focuses on reproductive health issues.

But New York officials’ remaining firm in defending the state’s shield law, Mr Grossman said, gives those providers at least “some reassurance” as the court cases play out.

On Tuesday, Mr Bruck told The Post he would not file the judgment if Texas made the request again.

In his letter refusing the request a second time, Mr Bruck was blunt: Resubmitting materials, he wrote, would “not alter the outcome.”

“While I’m not entirely sure how things work in Texas, here in New York, a rejection means the matter is closed,” Mr Bruck’s letter said.

“Have a good day.”

- - -

Kim Bellware, Jonathan Edwards and Brianna Tucker contributed to this report.

© 2025 , The Washington Post