Ulster County Clerk Taylor Bruck is back in the sights of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, just 17 days after Paxton's case against Bruck was thrown out of state Supreme Court in Kingston. This week, he filed an appeal to Supreme Court Judge's David Gandin's dismissal of the lawsuit. It will be heard by state appellate court for the Third Judicial District.

Paxton, on behalf of the state of Texas, first became involved with Ulster in late 2024, as he attempted to prosecuted a civil case against New Paltz doctor Maggie Carpenter, who defied Texas’s abortion ban and shipped abortion medication to a Texas woman as a telemedicine treatment. New York state law explicitly protects medical professionals from such interstate abortion suits, so Carpenter took no action in response. Then, in February, a Texas court granted Paxton summary judgment and fined Carpenter $100,000.

Bruck became involved when Paxton tried to file the judgment locally. Bruck, citing New York State Shield Law, refused to do so, meaning the fine won’t be enforced in this state. Paxton filed to compel Bruck, who stood his ground, writing Paxton's office (with some snark), “The rejection stands. Resubmitting the same materials does 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.”

Paxton, in turn, went after Carpenter and Bruck, referring to the doctor as “a radical abortionist who must face justice” and Bruck as one of the “New York liberals intent on ending the lives of as many unborn children as they can.”

The case could have very big consequences. One thought was pitched County Legislator Aaron Levine of Saugerties. “I believe that the genesis of this lawsuit by Texas Attorney General Paxton is to get this case into the federal court system,” he told us when county funding of Bruck's defense came up for a vote in August. “He wants to eventually get this case up to the United States Supreme Court with the goal of getting shield laws overturned nationwide. So, I think it is critical that we make sure that our clerk has the utmost legal representation.”

The Bruck case's latest filings offer scant information on the Texas appeal's legal arguments, offering only this bare-bones outline: “[Bruck] has a ministerial obligation to file [Texas's] Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint. [NYS Shield Law] does not specifically direct [Bruck] to refuse to file [Texas's] Notice and would be unconstitutional as-applied under the Full Faith and Credit Clause if it did. The court erred in interpreting § 837-x and concluding that the constitutional question was not at issue.”

We reached out for comment from Bruck's attorneys and Paxton's office but has received no reply as of press time.

“I’m confident that the appellate court will come to the same conclusion as the original decision. If they choose to hear the case at all,” Bruck said. “An appeal wasn’t wholly unexpected, so we’re prepared and will continue forward with the case.”