ALBANY, N.Y. (NEXSTAR) New York Attorney General Letitia James is intervening in a lawsuit filed against the Ulster Country Clerk by the state of Texas. James announced on Monday that her office will defend the state’s shield law, which Texas claims is unconstitutional as it tries to enforce its efforts local laws across state lines against a doctor who provided abortion care.

“I am stepping in to defend the integrity of our laws and our courts against this blatant overreach,” the attorney general said in a statement. “Texas has no authority in New York, and no power to impose its cruel abortion ban here. Our shield law exists to protect New Yorkers from out-of-state extremists, and New York will always stand strong as a safe haven for health care and freedom of choice. I will fight every last attempt to roll back our rights and turn back the clock on reproductive freedom.” According to James, her office has the statutory right to intervene in the case against the clerk because it ultimately challenges the constitutionality of a New York state law.

“Letitia James is a lawless abortionist who is obsessed with killing babies and weaponizing her office for her political career,” came the tweet from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in response. “I will defeat her in court.”

In February, a Texas court issued a judgment against Ulster County’s Dr. Margaret Daley Carpenter for a $100,000 civil penalty, $12,400 in attorney’s fees, and $819.59 in filing costs. The Texas court found that Carpenter, who prescribes abortion medication, had violated the Texas Medical Practice Act and the Texas Health and Safety Code by practicing medicine without a license or registration in Texas, and that an “unborn child died as a result of these violations.”

The judgment was for $113,219.59. It permanently prevented Carpenter from prescribing abortion-inducing drugs to Texans and from practicing medicine in Texas without a license.

In March, Texas tried to enforce the judgment by filing it in New York. But acting Ulster County Clerk Taylor Bruck rejected the filing, citing New York Executive Law § 837-X. That’s the state shield law protecting providers of gender-affirming or reproductive care who offer services that are legal 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.