Case: Texas v. Bruck
EF2025-2536 | New York state trial court
Filed Date: July 25, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case arose from Texas's attempt to use New York's courts to enforce a judgment against a New York physician who prescribed abortion-inducing medication via telehealth to a Texas patient. On July 25, 2025, the Attorney General of Texas filed this Article 78 proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Ulster. Texas sued the Acting County Clerk of Ulster County, seeking a writ of mandamus compelling him to file a Texas default judgment against a New York doctor, who had been sued by the state of Texas. Texas alleged that Bruck had unlawfully refused to accept the filing in violation of New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) § 2102(c), which generally prohibits court clerks from refusing to file papers presented to them, and sought a writ of mandamus compelling the Ulster County Clerk to accept the filing, as well as attorneys' fees under CPLR Article 86. The case was assigned to Justice David M. Gandin.
The underlying judgment was issued on February 13, 2025 by the District Court of Collin County in Texas v. Carpenter, holding the defendant doctor liable for violating the Texas Medical Practice Act (Tex. Occ. Code, Title 3, Subtitle B; 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 174.8) and Texas Health & Safety Code § 170A.002 for practicing medicine without a license in Texas and for prescribing abortion-inducing medication. The Texas court entered a default judgment against the doctor for $100,000 in damages. The judgment also enjoined the doctor from prescribing abortion-inducing drugs to Texas residents and from practicing medicine in Texas without a license. On March 17, 2025, Texas submitted a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint to the Ulster County Clerk's Office, seeking to domesticate and enforce the Texas judgment in New York.
The defendant rejected the filing on March 27, 2025, citing New York Executive Law § 837-x, which prohibits state and local government employees from using government resources in furtherance of any investigation or proceeding seeking to impose civil or criminal liability on a person for engaging in a "legally protected health activity" in New York State. Texas sent a renewed demand on July 11, 2025, which the defendant again rejected on July 14, 2025, prompting this proceeding.
On September 17, 2025, the New York State Attorney General filed a motion to intervene. On September 19, 2025, the defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 7804(f). On October 31, 2025, Justice Gandin granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and denied the Attorney General's motion to intervene. Justice Gandin held that the defendant had lawfully refused the filing under Executive Law § 837-x, which broadly prohibits local government employees from expending any government resources in furtherance of proceedings seeking to impose liability for "legally protected health activity" occurring in New York. The court found that the conduct of the doctor in Texas v. Carpenter fell squarely within the statute's definition of "legally protected health activity," and that the defendant therefore acted consistently with CPLR § 2102(c). The court rejected Texas's argument that § 837-x was inapplicable because it did not specifically mention county clerks, reasoning that the statute was broadly written to cover all local government employees and all uses of government resources. The court also rejected Texas's argument that the judgment did not implicate "legally protected health activity" because it did not expressly state that the doctor was in New York when she acted, noting that the supporting petition was a public record establishing she was a licensed New York physician who provided medication via telehealth. Justice Gandin denied the Attorney General's intervention motion on the ground that no constitutional challenge to § 837-x was actually at issue in the proceeding, and found that discretionary intervention was also unwarranted.
On November 17, 2025, Texas filed a notice of appeal. On December 1, 2025, the New York State Attorney General filed a notice of cross-appeal. As of April 2026 both appeals are pending.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Madilynn O'Hara (1/17/2026)
Josie Clerfond (4/22/2026)
Related Cases
Texas v. Carpenter, Texas state trial court (2024)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
Last updated Jan. 25, 2026, 12:07 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Healthcare Access and Reproductive Issues
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 25, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Attorney General of Texas
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
County
County of Ulster
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Other Dockets:
New York state supreme court EF2025-2536
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Reproductive rights:
Reproductive health care (including birth control, abortion, and others)
Case Summary of Texas v. Bruck, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/47695/ (last updated 4/22/2026).