Potential Legal Challenges To Abortion Shield Laws
A clerk in New York refused to file a judgment against a doctor for violating Texas abortion laws, however the threat to shield laws still looms
On February 13, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced that his office had successfully sued a New York-based physician, Dr. Linda Prine, for prescribing abortion pills to patients in Texas. A Collin County judge ruled in favor of Paxton’s office, ordering Dr. Prine to cease prescribing medication abortion to Texas residents and levying over $100,000 in fines against her. Neither Dr. Prine nor her attorneys appeared in court. And on Thursday, March 27 a New York county clerk refused to file that judgment.
Still the very existence of the lawsuit marks one of the most significant legal challenges to abortion shield laws, which were enacted in progressive states following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade. The laws — passed in California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington — are designed to protect providers who offer legal abortion services in their home states, including via telemedicine or by mailing abortion pills to patients in states where the procedure is banned.
In response to the Texas ruling, New York officials insist that they will use the state's shield law to defend Dr. Prine and other providers from out-of-state legal action. The case could escalate to federal court, potentially setting a national precedent on whether shield laws can override interstate enforcement efforts.
This battle over shield laws has also been emerging in other states. On February 22, The New York Times reported that Louisiana officials are considering a federal court request to extradite an abortion provider protected under another state’s shield law. If successful, this would be the first known attempt to use the federal courts to bypass a state’s refusal to cooperate with another state’s prosecution under the landscape of current abortion bans.
Shield laws prohibit local agencies and courts from cooperating with another state's efforts to target abortion providers. The emergence of these shield laws remains controversial as although they are supported by pro-choice groups as an attempted solution to the Dobbs decisions, these laws have been seen as infringements on state sovereignty and could untimely become a federal court question, leaving it up to the Supreme Court to determine whether states have the authority to refuse compliance with each other’s laws.
“You have states not just picking their own strategy but really trying to completely sabotage the governing efforts of their neighboring states,” said John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life, in an interview with The New York Times.
Seago’s organization has taken its efforts a step further by preparing to file wrongful death lawsuits against abortion providers. In recent months, numerous men in Texas have come forward with the support of anti-abortion extremist groups alleging that their partners obtained abortions and that they intend to sue the doctors, clinics, or organizations that facilitated the procedures.
These wrongful death claims represent a growing legal tactic to penalize abortion providers through civil court rather than criminal prosecution. If these suits are successful, they may provide a more viable path for red states to challenge shield law protections and financially cripple providers operating in blue states.
Grassroots organizations such as Plan C and SHERo have been on the front lines, assisting patients who face restrictions on access to medicated abortions. These organizers, like Dr. Prine, who works with Aid Access – an international telemedicine abortion provider– are facing uncertainty as they often rely on shield law protections to shield providers from prosecution
If shield laws continue to be challenged, it could mean an end to a key defense against the national expansion of abortion bans. Both abortion opponents and advocates agree that the constitutional questions raised by these cases are likely to end up before the Supreme Court. At stake is not only the legality of shield laws but also the broader issue of how states interact in a post-Roe legal environment — and whether one state’s policies can legally insulate its residents from the laws of another.
If courts rule against shield laws, abortion providers in blue states could be exposed to legal actions, fines, and extradition demands from red states, dramatically reshaping the landscape of reproductive health access nationwide.
