Texas officials have kicked their interstate court fight with Ulster County into a higher gear, filing an appeal after a New York judge backed County Clerk Taylor Bruck’s refusal to accept a Texas civil judgment against New Paltz physician Dr. Margaret Carpenter. The clash has become a closely watched test of New York’s shield law, which bars state and local officials from using their offices to help enforce out-of-state actions aimed at reproductive care that is legal within New York’s borders.
According to Mid-Hudson News, the appeal was filed on May 22, 2026, after a state court in Ulster County ruled that Bruck lawfully rejected Texas’ attempt to domesticate a default judgment. The outlet described the appeal as the latest move in a months-long tug-of-war over whether New York officials can be forced to assist with out-of-state enforcement of abortion-related penalties.
In late March, Acting Ulster County Clerk Taylor Bruck notified Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton that his office would not file a summary judgment against Carpenter, saying it would conflict with New York’s shield law. The Ulster County Clerk’s Office said in a statement that Bruck’s office would refuse similar filings going forward. “In accordance with the New York State Shield Law, I have refused this filing and will refuse any similar filings that may come to our office,” the clerk’s press release stated.
Court decision and written record
A state Supreme Court justice in Ulster County dismissed Texas’ petition on Oct. 31, 2025, finding that Carpenter’s prescription activity “falls squarely within the definition of ‘legally protected health activity,’” according to the court’s written order. The decision, which is publicly available in the court record, notes that the Texas default judgment sought $113,219.59 and concludes that Executive Law §837-x forbids county clerks from using public resources to process out-of-state enforcement requests of this kind.
What Texas is asking the appellate court
Texas officials now want a higher New York court to set aside the Ulster County ruling and allow the state to convert its default judgment into an enforceable New York order, according to Mid-Hudson News. If a New York appellate court permits domestication, Texas could pursue collection of the six-figure penalty and potentially create a playbook for other states looking to enforce similar judgments beyond their borders.
Why the fight matters beyond Ulster County
Legal observers and advocates say the case lands squarely in the center of a broader national fight over telemedicine abortion and whether states can effectively export their penalties across state lines. Courts have been working through those questions while federal rulings on access to mifepristone and telehealth prescribing move through the appeals process. The U.S. Supreme Court briefly restored telehealth access to the abortion pill in early May while an appeals decision was under review, according to Axios.
Local reaction and who has intervened
Local leaders and New York’s top law enforcement officials have lined up behind the shield law and Bruck’s decision not to file the Texas judgment. Ulster County Executive Jen Metzger publicly welcomed the October ruling, and New York Attorney General Letitia James moved to intervene in the litigation to defend the statute, Times Union reported.
What happens next
Under New York procedure, an appeal generally must be filed within 30 days of the entry of an order, a timeline the October decision itself cites. With Texas meeting that deadline, the dispute is expected to move quickly into the Appellate Division, where months of written briefs and oral arguments are likely to follow. Whatever the outcome, the case is set to test how far shield laws can go in protecting clinicians who provide reproductive care by telehealth to patients in other states.
Reproductive-rights groups and telehealth advocates say the appeal could determine whether sanctuary-style statutes like New York’s actually block cross-border enforcement efforts in practice, while opponents argue that the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause should limit states’ ability to refuse recognition of other states’ judgments. Court watchers in the Hudson Valley and beyond will be tracking the appellate docket to see whether New York courts continue to prioritize state-level protections for providers.
For now, local officials say they will let the appeals process run its course. Bruck has maintained that his office acted “in accordance with New York law” when it rejected the Texas filing and that it will continue to carry out its duties under state statute while the courts sort out the interstate showdown.
