In June 2023, New York enacted a package of statutes — collectively the “shield law” — designed to protect healthcare providers, patients, and others involved in legally protected health activities from out-of-state legal actions. The law was a direct legislative response to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and the proliferation of state-level abortion restrictions and bans on gender-affirming care for minors. The law was expanded in 2024 and has since been tested in the courts — most prominently in Texas v. Bruck, where a New York judge upheld the shield law’s bar on docketing a Texas default judgment against a New York reproductive healthcare provider.

As of early 2026, twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have enacted some form of shield law. New York’s framework is among the most comprehensive, with explicit telehealth coverage, civil and criminal protections, professional discipline shields, and extradition limits.

What the Healthcare Shield Law Does

The shield law operates as a coordinated set of protections across multiple chapters of New York law. It does not change what is legal in New York — it limits New York’s cooperation with other states’ attempts to punish conduct that is legal here.

Bars New York agencies from cooperating with out-of-state actions. State and local government employees are prohibited from expending time, resources, equipment, or personnel in furtherance of any investigation or proceeding seeking to impose civil or criminal liability or professional sanctions on a person or entity for a “legally protected health activity” occurring in New York. This is the provision the Ulster County Clerk invoked in Texas v. Bruck to refuse to docket the Texas judgment against Dr. Margaret Carpenter.

Restricts extradition. The Governor is generally prohibited from honoring an extradition request from another state for a person whose alleged offense involves the provision of legally protected health activity in New York — absent specific limited exceptions (for example, where the accused was physically present in the demanding state at the time of the alleged offense). Governor Hochul invoked this protection to refuse Louisiana’s extradition request for Dr. Carpenter.

Limits subpoenas and disclosure. Restrictions on responding to out-of-state subpoenas, summonses, and discovery requests in connection with covered out-of-state actions; restrictions on disclosure of patient health information by providers, electronic health record vendors, and entities that hold reproductive health data.

Professional discipline shield. The Office of Professional Medical Conduct and other licensing boards are restricted from taking disciplinary action against a NY-licensed provider based on out-of-state conduct that would be legal if performed in New York — including legally protected reproductive and gender-affirming care.

Malpractice insurance protections. Restrictions on insurers’ ability to cancel, refuse to renew, or increase premiums based on a provider’s lawful provision of legally protected health activity, or based on out-of-state actions targeting that activity.

Telehealth coverage. The shield law expressly protects providers who deliver legally protected health activity via telehealth to patients located outside New York — a critical provision because most provider-patient interactions across state lines involve telemedicine.

Civil cause of action. Creates a New York civil cause of action for individuals subject to qualifying out-of-state actions, allowing recovery of damages, attorneys’ fees, and other relief from those who pursue or assist the prohibited out-of-state action.

Key Statutes in the Shield Law Package

Statute	Subject
Public Health Law § 230-f	Restrictions on professional medical conduct enforcement based on legally protected health activity
Public Health Law § 18 (amended)	Restrictions on disclosure of medical records relating to legally protected health activity
Civil Rights Law § 70-d	Civil cause of action for persons targeted by qualifying out-of-state proceedings
CPLR § 4549	Limits on use of out-of-state subpoenas and discovery in NY courts for covered actions
CPL § 570.19 (amended)	Extradition restrictions where the alleged offense involves legally protected health activity in New York
Insurance Law amendments	Restrictions on malpractice insurance adverse action based on protected activity
Education Law amendments	Limits on professional discipline of licensees based on legally protected activity

The protections collectively cover what the law defines as “legally protected health activity” — healthcare lawful in New York, including reproductive healthcare (abortion, contraception, miscarriage management) and gender-affirming care.

Recent Developments — Texas v. Bruck and Beyond

The shield law was first tested in Texas v. Bruck, arising from Texas’s lawsuit against New York physician Dr. Margaret Daley Carpenter for prescribing abortion medication via telehealth to a Texas resident.

The Texas judgment. In November 2024, the Texas Attorney General sued Dr. Carpenter in Collin County, Texas. Dr. Carpenter did not respond. In February 2025, a Texas court entered a default judgment against her, imposing a civil penalty exceeding $113,000 and a permanent injunction barring her from providing abortion telemedicine to Texas residents.

The NY clerk’s refusal. When Texas attempted to domesticate the judgment in Ulster County, New York, Acting County Clerk Taylor Bruck refused to docket it, citing the shield law. Texas then sued Bruck in NY state court, arguing the U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause required acceptance of the Texas judgment.

The NY court’s ruling. In November 2025, NY State Supreme Court Justice David Gandin dismissed Texas’s mandamus petition. The court held Dr. Carpenter’s conduct fell squarely within the shield law’s scope and that the statute legally barred Bruck from processing the Texas filing.

Louisiana extradition. In a parallel matter, Dr. Carpenter was criminally indicted in Louisiana. Governor Hochul refused the extradition request, invoking the shield law’s extradition restrictions.

Open constitutional questions. The Full Faith and Credit Clause issue remains live. The Supreme Court has historically recognized a “penal judgment” exception to full faith and credit, but the contours of that exception have not been tested in the modern interstate-abortion context. Conflicts of law questions, personal jurisdiction over telehealth providers, and the Extradition Clause’s reach to providers who never physically entered the demanding state are all unresolved. Most observers expect these questions to reach the U.S. Supreme Court eventually.

Other matters in motion. A January 2026 Texas suit against a Delaware nurse practitioner (Lynch) tests Delaware’s shield law, which lacks specific telehealth provisions. A California physician (Dr. Coeytaux) faces a Louisiana arrest warrant and a Texas civil suit. The interstate litigation is expanding.

What the Shield Law Does Not Do

Understanding the limits matters as much as understanding the protections.

It does not bind other states’ courts. The shield law is New York law. A Texas court can still hear a Texas case; the law restricts what New York will do in response. A NY provider can still face an out-of-state default judgment, an out-of-state criminal indictment, or an out-of-state civil award.

It does not protect against arrest in the demanding state. If a NY provider physically travels to a state with hostile laws, the shield law does not protect against arrest, prosecution, or judicial process in that state. Travel decisions warrant counsel review.

It does not eliminate downstream consequences. Out-of-state judgments, even unenforceable in NY, can show up in credit reports, insurance applications, hospital credentialing inquiries, and federal database checks. Active management is required.

It does not provide immunity for unlawful conduct. The shield protects “legally protected health activity” — healthcare lawful in New York. Conduct outside that scope is not covered.

The constitutional questions are unresolved. Until the Full Faith and Credit Clause and Extradition Clause questions are decided, the protections function but the legal foundation is being actively litigated. A favorable trial-court ruling like Texas v. Bruck can be appealed; future rulings could narrow the protections.

If You Are a NY Provider Facing Out-of-State Action

Do not respond to out-of-state process without counsel. Service of an out-of-state subpoena, summons, civil complaint, target letter, or grand jury subpoena requires immediate legal review. The default approach for many providers in Texas v. Bruck-type situations has been calculated non-response — but that decision must be made with counsel after analyzing personal jurisdiction, conflicts of law, and the strategic posture of any subsequent enforcement attempt.

Do not travel to hostile-law states without counsel review. The shield law’s protections operate in New York; physical presence in a state with restrictive laws creates exposure the shield cannot reach.

Notify your malpractice carrier carefully. The shield law restricts insurer adverse action, but notice provisions in policies still apply, and notice is often required regardless of insurer outcome. Counsel should coordinate the notice.

Document compliance with NY law. Charting that demonstrates the care met NY standards and was lawful here is the foundational protection. Documentation gaps complicate shield law invocation.

Coordinate with your hospital, group, or telehealth platform. Group practices and telehealth platforms often have their own protocols and obligations triggered by out-of-state action against a member provider. Coordinate early.

Plan for downstream effects. Even unenforceable out-of-state judgments can require active management with respect to credentialing, federal databases (NPDB), insurance, and licensure in other states.

The Multi-State Landscape

As of early 2026, approximately 22 states and the District of Columbia have enacted shield laws. Coverage varies widely. Some shield laws cover only reproductive care; some cover only gender-affirming care; some cover both. Some include explicit telehealth provisions (NY, California, Massachusetts, Washington); some do not (Delaware). For a NY-licensed provider with patients across multiple states, the practical question is which protections apply where, and how telehealth jurisdiction analysis interacts with the shield framework.

NY-licensed providers should assume that the threat surface includes both red-state attorneys general (Texas, Louisiana, Idaho, Alabama and others have signaled enforcement intent) and private civil plaintiffs (some restrictive states authorize private rights of action against providers and assisters).

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the shield law protect me if I provide telehealth abortion care to patients in restrictive states?

For activities lawful in New York — including telehealth abortion care — the shield law’s NY-side protections apply: NY agencies will not cooperate, NY courts will not enforce qualifying out-of-state judgments, the Governor can refuse extradition, and licensure shields apply. The shield law does not, however, prevent the demanding state from filing suit, indicting, or entering a default judgment against you in that state’s courts. The Carpenter matter is the working illustration of this dynamic.

If I get sued in another state, should I respond?

It depends. Response can create personal jurisdiction risks, generate discoverable testimony and documents, and incur substantial defense costs in a hostile forum. Non-response leads to a default judgment that may or may not be enforceable in NY. The decision is a strategic one that depends on the type of proceeding (civil vs. criminal), the available defenses, the asset profile, the multi-state licensing situation, and the broader case posture. Consult counsel before doing anything.

Can I be extradited from New York?

Generally no, where the alleged out-of-state offense involves legally protected health activity provided in New York. CPL § 570.19 was amended to limit the Governor’s discretion to honor such extradition demands. Limited exceptions apply — particularly where the accused was physically present in the demanding state at the time. Governor Hochul refused Louisiana’s extradition request for Dr. Carpenter on this basis.

Can my malpractice insurer drop me or raise my premiums based on out-of-state action?

The shield law restricts insurer adverse action based on a provider’s lawful provision of legally protected health activity, or based on out-of-state actions targeting that activity. Specific application depends on policy terms, the insurer’s domicile, and the nature of the action. Insurance issues should be addressed proactively, not after a renewal denial.

What about hospital credentialing or federal program participation?

Hospital credentialing typically asks about pending litigation, judgments, and licensure actions. Even an unenforceable out-of-state judgment may require disclosure under the literal terms of the questions. Federal program participation involves the National Practitioner Data Bank, which catalogs adverse actions broadly. The shield law’s NY-side protections do not eliminate these reporting and disclosure obligations — but they do affect what is reportable. Each situation requires individual analysis.

Is the shield law constitutional?

The constitutional questions — particularly Full Faith and Credit and Extradition Clause questions — are unresolved. The trial court in Texas v. Bruck upheld the shield law’s application; that ruling is subject to appeal and additional cases will test other aspects. Most legal observers expect the issues to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime, the protections are operative in New York.

What about other “shield laws” I’ve heard about?

“Shield law” in NY usage refers to several unrelated statutes: the Healthcare Shield Law (this page), the SHIELD Act (cybersecurity, GBL §§ 899-aa and 899-bb), and the Reporter’s Shield Law (CRL § 79-h, journalist source protection). Federal “shield law” proposals exist for reporters but have not been enacted. Verify which statute applies to your situation before acting.

How We Help

The firm advises NY-based healthcare providers on the shield law’s application to their practice, including pre-incident counseling on documentation, telehealth compliance, malpractice coverage review, and travel risk; rapid response when out-of-state process arrives; coordination with malpractice and D&O carriers; coordination with hospital and credentialing entities; and litigation in NY courts to enforce shield law protections, including challenges to attempted enforcement of out-of-state judgments. The firm partners with experienced trial counsel where the matter benefits from additional resources, particularly in matters with parallel out-of-state criminal exposure.

Related pages: Healthcare law · Healthcare law for medical professionals · Prescription defense · Cybersecurity legal obligations (SHIELD Act) · Medical litigation

Contact Us

Call toll-free: (888) 275-2620. Available 24/7.

Suffolk County Office: 12 Bank Avenue, Smithtown, NY 11787

Nassau County Office: 1225 Franklin Avenue, Suite 325, Garden City, NY 11530

The firm represents healthcare providers in shield law matters across all 62 New York counties.

Our law firm has over 3,000 client testimonials across Google, BBB, Trustpilot, and other platforms. View verified client reviews.

Contact the law firm

Last reviewed by Attorney Ronald S. Cook — May 2026

This page is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The legal and constitutional landscape around state shield laws is actively evolving through ongoing federal and state litigation; verify current case status before relying on the information here. Prior results do not guarantee future results.