ALBANY, N.Y. (NEXSTAR) New York Attorney General Letitia James is taking action in response to a lawsuit initiated by the state of Texas against the Ulster County Clerk. James declared on Monday that her office will defend the state’s shield law, which Texas argues is unconstitutional as it attempts to apply its laws across state borders against a doctor accused of providing abortion care.

“I am intervening to uphold the integrity of our laws and our courts against such overreach,” James stated. “Texas has no jurisdiction in New York and cannot enforce its harsh abortion restrictions here. Our shield law is in place to protect New Yorkers from out-of-state extremists, ensuring New York remains a sanctuary for healthcare and personal choice. I’m committed to combating every effort to undermine our rights and reverse advancements on reproductive freedom.” James emphasized that her office has a legal mandate to participate in the case against the clerk, as it challenges a New York state law’s constitutionality.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton responded with a tweet labeling Letitia James as “a lawless abortionist devoted to ending infants’ lives and misusing her office for political gain,” adding, “I will confront her in court.”

In February, a Texas court held Ulster County’s Dr. Margaret Daley Carpenter liable for a civil penalty of $100,000, attorney’s fees amounting to $12,400, and $819.59 in filing costs. The Texas court ruled that Carpenter, who prescribes abortion medication, had breached the Texas Medical Practice Act and the Texas Health and Safety Code by practicing without a license or registration in Texas, and claimed that “an unborn child died due to these violations.”

The total judgment amounted to $113,219.59. It permanently barred Carpenter from prescribing abortion-inducing medications to Texans and from practicing medicine in Texas without proper licensing.

In March, Texas attempted to enforce the judgment by filing it in New York. However, acting Ulster County Clerk Taylor Bruck rejected the filing, invoking New York Executive Law § 837-X. This law serves as a shield to protect providers of gender-affirming or reproductive care who conduct services legally permitted in New York.

It blocks public officials from enforcing out-of-state subpoenas, judgments, arrests, or extraditions against them. A clerk can refuse a filing only when specifically directed to do so by statute, a rule from the chief administrator of the courts, or a court order.

Texas sued Bruck in Ulster County Supreme Court, seeking an order to force the judgment to be filed. According to the lawsuit, New York Executive Law § 837-X does not specifically direct such a refusal and was therefore not a valid justification to reject the filing.

Texas also argued that a writ of mandamus is a proper legal remedy in this situation because a government officer “failed to perform a duty enjoined upon it by law.”

Both sides have sparred over legal representation. In August, Texas assistant attorney general Ernest Garcia told the court that Dhillon Law Group, Inc., the law firm representing Texas, was working to secure local counsel. That’s because Texas’s attorney of record in the matter, Todd Dickerson, was ineligible under New York law. Judiciary Law § 470 requires a New York-licensed attorney must have an office in the state to practice law in New York’s courts.

On Monday, Josiah Contarino of Dhillon Law, a member of the New York Bar, filed a Notice of Appearance as counsel for Texas. He also filed an amended motion to admit two Texas attorneys—Garcia and Steven Ogle—to appear “pro hac vice”—for or on this occasion only. The motion states that, although Garcia and Ogle are licensed to practice law in Texas and are members in good standing of the State Bar of Texas and the Supreme Court of Texas, Contarino will serve as the attorney of record.

According to James’ office, they’ll respond to the lawsuit filed by Paxton against Bruck by September 19. In August, Bruck’s counsel had requested a 30-day adjournment to respond to the Texas petition. It was granted by the judge, pushing the next court date to September 24.

In July, Texas sent a demand letter to Bruck requiring him to file the judgment. Bruck rejected the demand, saying, “Here in New York, a rejection means the matter is closed.” Texas filed the lawsuit, an Article 78 petition, on July 25.

“State of Texas v. Taylor Bruck” is an Article 78 proceeding challenging a decision or inaction by a New York government agent or agency. Texas seeks a writ of mandamus, a court order to compel the clerk to perform what Texas argues represents a mandatory duty under New York law.

The case could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court, testing the limits of states’ rights in post-Roe New York.

In Texas, the legislature recently passed and sent to the governor’s desk House Bill 7, introducing additional regulations on abortion-inducing drugs. It bans their manufacture, distribution, and provision within Texas and lets private citizens sue anyone who violates the law, including out-of-state individuals. The bill’s private enforcement model resembles the existing Texas heartbeat law letting Texans file civil lawsuits against abortions providers.