A court clerk in Ulster County, New York, refused to docket an order for summary judgment against local resident Dr. Margaret Carpter on Monday. The order imposed a $100,000 sanction against Carpenter, a New York physician, for providing the abortion medication mifepristone to a resident of Collin County, Texas. The refusal by acting Ulster County clerk Taylor Bruck came after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton delivered a second demand letter to Bruck’s office on July 9.
Bruck’s response was grounded in New York’s “shield laws,” enacted after Roe v. Wade’s abrogation by the US Supreme Court in 2022. These laws prohibit the extradition or enforcement of civil judgments against medical providers offering “reproductive health” services. The laws shield medical practitioners if they are in the state when the services are rendered. In a response letter to Paxton, Bruck stated: “We have received your letter regarding the Dr. Margaret Carpenter judgment originally submitted for filing on March 17th, 2025. The rejection stands. Resubmitting the same materials does not alter the outcome.” Bruck’s refusal to docket the matter prevents the judgments’ enforcement altogether.
Attorney General Paxton has not commented on the rejection, though he is expected to do so. This interstate conflict is an outgrowth of opposing stances between anti-abortion and pro-abortion states in the post-Roe era. The topic continues to ignite deep passions among citizens and their elected representatives, resulting in interstate tensions surrounding the appropriateness and manner in which these procedures are carried out.
Attorney General Paxton filed suit against Carpenter in December 2024. The complaint alleged that Carpenter provided the medications to a 20-year-old female patient through a telehealth service. Paxton declared scores of Texas health code violations against Carpenter, such as practicing with inadequate state licensure, offering abortion care without in-person examination, and non-compliance with telemedicine prohibitions, among other claims. Carpenter did not appear for court proceedings in the case. As a result, the court awarded summary judgment to Texas, the plaintiff in the matter.
The case could land before the US Supreme Court because it has jurisdiction over interstate conflicts. However, the court signaled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that it lacks an appetite for compelling states to take one position over another and that states are best-suited to iron out the details because the US Constitution is silent on abortion. Nevertheless, this dispute remains ongoing.
