Texas Man Sues California Doctor in First Private Action Under New Abortion Pill Ban
By Daniel Wiessner, Reuters
February 2 – In a novel legal challenge that could reshape the national landscape of abortion access, a Texas man has filed a federal lawsuit accusing a California doctor of violating a new state ban by prescribing abortion pills to his partner. The case marks the first known private action under Texas's HB 7, a law that took effect in December and deputizes ordinary citizens to sue anyone who prescribes, mails, or delivers abortion-inducing drugs.
The plaintiff, Jerry Rodriguez, amended his complaint in Galveston federal court on Sunday, seeking an injunction to stop Dr. Remy Coeytaux from allegedly mailing the medications to Texas patients. This suit opens a new front in the escalating legal war over mifepristone, a drug used in the majority of U.S. abortions, following the Supreme Court's 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
Beyond testing Texas's controversial enforcement mechanism, the case is poised to trigger a direct conflict with California's "shield law," which protects in-state healthcare providers from out-of-state investigations and extradition. Over a dozen Democratic-led states have enacted similar protections, creating a patchwork of conflicting state statutes.
Dr. Coeytaux is already under indictment in Louisiana for similar allegations. California Governor Gavin Newsom has publicly stated the state will not extradite him, signaling a firm stance against cooperating with such cross-border prosecutions.
Rodriguez's initial lawsuit, filed last year, alleged wrongful death of a fetus. The amended complaint leverages HB 7's lower legal bar, which requires only proof of prohibited conduct rather than medical negligence—a significant shift that legal experts say makes such suits easier to file. Rodriguez seeks at least $100,000 in statutory penalties per violation.
Representing Rodriguez is Jonathan Mitchell, the former Texas solicitor general who architectured the state's 2021 abortion law (SB 8) upon which HB 7 is modeled. The newer law allows for penalties up to ten times greater.
"This is a dangerous escalation," said Nancy Northup, President of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is defending Dr. Coeytaux. "Texas has effectively outsourced abortion enforcement to vigilantes, encouraging them to target providers beyond their borders."
The lawsuit arrives as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton aggressively pursues similar cases against providers in Delaware and New York, testing the limits of other states' shield laws in court.
The case is Rodriguez v. Coeytaux, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, No. 3:25-cv-00225.
Voices from the Public
Marcus Chen, Legal Scholar in Austin, TX: "This case is the logical, if troubling, next step in the privatization of law enforcement. HB 7 creates a bounty-hunter system for abortion restrictions, deliberately designed to evade federal court review and intimidate providers nationwide."
Rebecca Shaw, Nurse Practitioner in San Diego, CA: "As a healthcare provider, this sends a chill down my spine. It's not just about abortion—it's about whether a state can criminalize standard medical care delivered in another state where it's legal. The implications for telemedicine are profound."
David P. Miller, Small Business Owner in Houston, TX (sharper tone): "Finally, some real accountability! If California doctors want to flout our laws and profit from ending lives in Texas, they should face the consequences. This 'shield law' nonsense is just cowardice—states shouldn't be sanctuaries for lawbreakers."
Anya Flores, Student Activist in Los Angeles, CA: "This isn't about law; it's about control and surveillance. It empowers ex-partners and strangers to police private medical decisions. It's a terrifying precedent that could extend far beyond abortion care."