A New York judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit by Texas that sought to enforce a six-figure civil judgment against a physician for unlawfully prescribing an abortion medication to a patient in the state.

In the order, New York State Supreme Court Justice David M. Gandin ruled Ulster County Clerk Taylor Bruck acted lawfully in refusing to file the $113,000 default judgment issued February 14 in a Texas court. The judgment stemmed from a lawsuit by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton against Dr. Margaret Daley Carpenter, a physician in New Paltz, New York, who was accused of unlawfully providing abortion-inducing medication to a Texas woman.

Justice Gandin stated: “The medical services Dr. Carpenter rendered are legal in New York State. Hence, Dr. Carpenter’s conduct falls squarely within the definition of ‘legally protected health activity’ under Executive Law $837-x … In fact, her activities were the precise type of conduct Executive Law $837-x was designed to protect.”

Carpenter had prescribed mifepristone, a medication used to terminate a pregnancy up to 10 weeks of gestation, to a Texas woman via a Telehealth appointment in July 2024. Texas law prohibits abortion with exceptions to preserve the life and “major bodily function” of the mother, but it is legal in New York.

The SHIELD Act, signed into New York state law in July 2019, requires companies to develop, implement and maintain safeguards to protect the security, confidentiality and integrity of private data, including social security and bank account numbers, biometric information, username or email addresses, and password credentials.

Bruck invoked New York’s SHIELD Act when he refused to file the judgment against Carpenter in March, and a second time in July.

In his lawsuit, Paxton alleged the SHIELD Act violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution, which says each state should respect other states’ laws. Gandin declined to rule on that claim. New York State Attorney General Letitia James requested to intervene as a respondent based on the constitutional challenge, but Gandin declined since he did not decide on that argument in the order.