WASHINGTON — On Tuesday, Justice Elena Kagan, acting alone on an emergency application, denied surrogate McKenna West’s request that the U.S. Supreme Court halt a California trial‑court ruling. The California decision named Texas residents Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed as the legal parents of an infant born to West after she refused to terminate the pregnancy following a severe cardiac diagnosis.
Background of the dispute
West was hired by Gilkar and Ahmed to serve as a surrogate. After an ultrasound revealed a serious heart defect in the unborn child, the couple asked West to end the pregnancy. West declined, carried the pregnancy to term, and gave birth to the boy on August 12 in Dallas, Texas.
Following the birth, the couple sued West for breach of their surrogacy agreement, specifically her refusal to terminate the pregnancy. West challenged the authority of California courts to declare the couple the child’s legal parents and even sought custody of the infant, arguing she should have a say in his ongoing medical care.
Court rulings and Supreme Court petition
In June, a California trial court ruled that Gilkar and Ahmed were the legal parents, rejecting West’s claim that the court lacked jurisdiction over her. The state’s appellate courts declined to stay that decision. West then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the California ruling was being enforced in Texas, leaving her without authority over the child’s medical decisions.
West’s legal team is from the conservative advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom, which has a history of representing anti‑abortion causes, including the landmark Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case that overturned Roe v. Wade.
Texas involvement and current status
Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is currently campaigning for a U.S. Senate seat, previously backed West in the case. The infant remains hospitalized in Texas, receiving treatment for his cardiac condition, according to the couple’s attorney.
In a filing submitted to the Supreme Court, the couple reiterated their commitment to the life‑saving care that West has advocated for the boy, emphasizing that they are pursuing the child’s best medical interests.
Supreme Court’s decision
Justice Kagan denied the emergency request without providing a rationale. The denial leaves the California court’s ruling in place, meaning Gilkar and Ahmed retain legal parentage while West’s appeal proceeds through the lower courts.
The decision does not resolve the broader legal questions surrounding surrogacy agreements, parental rights, and state jurisdiction, but it does keep the current parental arrangement intact as the child continues treatment in Texas.
Implications
The case highlights ongoing tensions between state courts over surrogacy disputes, especially when parties reside in different states. It also underscores the role of conservative legal groups and state officials in shaping the national conversation about parental rights and the limits of surrogacy contracts.
Original reporting: Appleton, WI News Feed (HLL/CB) — read the source article.
