The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to halt a California judicial ruling that declared a California couple the legal parents of an infant born to their surrogate, who had refused their request to terminate the pregnancy after the fetus was diagnosed with a severe cardiac defect. The order was issued unilaterally by Justice Elena Kagan, who handles emergency matters arising from California and several other Western states. Kagan provided no written explanation for the decision.
The surrogate, McKenna West, had asked the high court to block the California parentage ruling while she pursues an appeal, arguing that the California decision was being enforced in Texas and left her without authority over the child amid critical decisions about his medical care. West is represented by attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal advocacy group.
The Supreme Court’s action does not resolve the broader legal dispute. It is an emergency order declining interim relief—not a final ruling on the merits of West’s claims or a nationwide determination about surrogacy law. The California parentage ruling remains in effect while the litigation continues, and the case highlights complex questions about legal parentage, interstate jurisdiction, and medical decision-making in surrogacy arrangements.
The Supreme Court’s action was procedurally narrow. Justice Kagan denied West’s request for a stay—an emergency order that would have paused the California parentage ruling while the Supreme Court considered whether to take up the case.
This is distinct from a merits decision. The Court did not rule on whether California properly exercised jurisdiction over West, whether the surrogacy agreement was enforceable, or whether West has any parental rights. It simply declined to intervene at this stage. A denial of a stay does not necessarily mean the Court will refuse to hear the case eventually, though it does mean the California ruling remains operative for now.
The California trial court ruled in June that Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed were the child’s legal parents, rejecting West’s contention that the court lacked jurisdiction over her. California appellate courts declined to stay that decision, prompting West’s emergency application to the Supreme Court.
McKenna West is an Alaska resident and cardiac nurse who entered into a surrogacy agreement with Gilkar and Ahmed in August 2025. According to court documents and reporting, West agreed to serve as a gestational carrier—meaning she would carry an embryo created through in vitro fertilization using the intended parents’ genetic material, with no genetic connection to the child herself.
The surrogacy contract included a clause permitting termination of the pregnancy in the event of a “fetal abnormality.” When the fetus was diagnosed in April with hypoplastic left heart syndrome—a congenital defect in which one side of the heart is underdeveloped, preventing normal blood flow—the intended parents sought to invoke that clause, according to West’s account. West refused and ultimately traveled to Texas, where abortion is illegal, to deliver the child.
West has argued that she should have a role in decisions about the child’s medical care. In her Supreme Court filing, her attorneys wrote that “without relief, she will receive no further information about the child she carried for 37 weeks and fought to save.” West has named the child Gabriel. The biological parents have named him Rumi.
Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed are a married couple who live in California. Gilkar told a Dallas court in August that the couple turned to surrogacy after she underwent eight unsuccessful rounds of in vitro fertilization and a hysterectomy. The couple signed the surrogacy agreement with West in August 2025.
After the fetal cardiac diagnosis, the couple asked West to terminate the pregnancy, a request she refused. The couple has acknowledged they once considered termination but say they are now committed to obtaining the best possible medical care for their son. Their attorney, Lee Budner, stated that “while McKenna West has been conducting a publicity tour, Rumi’s parents have been quietly caring for their child and following the recommendations of Rumi’s medical team.”
Gilkar testified in August that West is making an already difficult situation more fraught: “She’s making us run from doctor to doctor, state to state with our baby. She’s trying to take him.”
The dispute centers on a disagreement over termination and its aftermath. When the fetus was diagnosed with a severe cardiac defect, Gilkar and Ahmed sought to invoke the termination clause in the surrogacy agreement. West refused to terminate the pregnancy and instead traveled to Texas to give birth.
The legal conflict that followed involved multiple states. West contended that the surrogacy agreement called for any legal challenges to be heard in Alaska, where she resided. The intended parents filed for a parentage judgment in California, where they live. A California trial court ruled in June that Gilkar and Ahmed were the legal parents, and West challenged that ruling in Texas courts and ultimately at the Supreme Court.
The case does not involve a court ordering a termination or forcing a medical procedure. It involves a dispute over which state’s courts have jurisdiction to determine parentage and who holds legal authority to make medical decisions after birth.
The child was born in Dallas on August 12, 2026. He was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome and has undergone at least one surgery, with additional procedures likely required.
Following the birth, the conflict moved through courts in multiple states. A Texas judge denied West’s custody claim, and the Texas Supreme Court ruled on September 17 that the infant could be transferred to a Los Angeles hospital for continued care, citing uncontroverted medical testimony that an ICU-to-ICU transfer was in the child’s best interest. The Texas court’s ruling focused narrowly on the medical transfer, not on the broader custody dispute.
Case Timeline
The California trial court ruled in June 2026 that Gilkar and Ahmed were the legal parents of the child, rejecting West’s argument that the court lacked jurisdiction over her. California appellate courts declined to stay that ruling pending appeal, leading West to seek emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Under California law, parties to a gestational carrier agreement are required to obtain a judgment in family court to establish that the intended parents named in the agreement are the legal parents of the child. The gestational carrier is not genetically related to the child in a typical gestational surrogacy arrangement, and California law provides a process for courts to issue a judgment establishing legal parentage based on the agreement.
This process is designed to provide clarity before or shortly after birth, enabling intended parents to direct medical care, add the child to health insurance, and obtain necessary travel documents. The California court’s parentage ruling carries legal weight, which is why West sought to have it stayed.
Gestational carrier: A person who carries and gives birth to a child conceived through assisted reproduction using an embryo created from the intended parents’ or donors’ genetic material. The gestational carrier is not genetically related to the child.
Traditional surrogate: A person who uses her own egg to achieve pregnancy and is therefore genetically related to the child.
Intended parents: The people who plan to be the legal parents of a child born through assisted reproduction.
Legal parent: Someone the law recognizes as the child’s parent, with rights and responsibilities including custody, visitation, and support.
Genetic parent: A person who contributes genetic material (egg or sperm) to the child’s creation.
California law distinguishes between genetic parentage and legal parentage. A court may determine legal parentage based on applicable law and the circumstances, including the terms of a gestational carrier agreement, rather than genetics alone. In gestational surrogacy, the carrier has no genetic connection to the child, and the intended parents are typically named as legal parents through a court judgment.
California has a statutory framework governing gestational carrier agreements and parentage determinations. Under Family Code sections 7960–7962, parties to a gestational carrier agreement must obtain a court judgment establishing the intended parents as legal parents and confirming that the gestational carrier and her spouse or partner are not legal parents.
This legal framework matters because legal parentage determines who has authority to make medical decisions for a child, who is financially responsible for the child’s support, and who has custody and visitation rights. In surrogacy cases that cross state lines, questions of jurisdiction and the recognition of parentage orders can become complex.
Surrogacy laws and procedures vary significantly by state. California has a well-established framework for gestational surrogacy, while other states have different rules or restrictions. This variation can create complications when a child is born in one state under an agreement governed by another state’s law.
The child was born in Texas, but the parentage ruling came from California. This interstate dimension created jurisdictional questions. West traveled to Texas—where abortion is illegal—to give birth after refusing the termination request. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton intervened in the case at an earlier stage, supporting West’s position.
The Texas Supreme Court’s September 17 ruling addressed only the narrow question of whether the infant could be transferred to California for medical care. The court cited testimony from the child’s Texas physician and a guardian ad litem that the transfer was in the child’s best medical interest. The court’s order did not resolve the broader custody dispute or the question of who holds legal parentage.
Interstate cases raise questions about which state’s court orders must be recognized and how conflicts between jurisdictions are resolved. The California parentage ruling and the Texas medical transfer ruling addressed different issues, and no court has yet issued a final determination resolving all aspects of the dispute.
West asked the Supreme Court to stay—pause—the California parentage ruling while she pursues an appeal. In her filing, her attorneys argued that the California ruling was being enforced in Texas, leaving West without authority over the child and denying her information about his medical status.
West’s filing stated that she sought to be informed about the baby’s medical status and to “advocate for her rights.” Her attorneys wrote that “without relief, she will receive no further information about the child she carried for 37 weeks and fought to save.”
This was an emergency application for interim relief, not a request for the Supreme Court to decide the entire case on the merits. West was asking the Court to maintain the status quo—preventing the California ruling from taking effect—while her appeal proceeds.
The Supreme Court’s denial of West’s emergency request means the California parentage ruling remains in effect for now. The practical consequence is that Gilkar and Ahmed retain their status as the child’s legal parents under California law while the litigation continues.
The order does not mean the Supreme Court has rejected West’s arguments on the merits or that it will never hear the case. It means the Court declined to grant emergency interim relief. The broader legal questions—including whether California properly exercised jurisdiction, whether West received due process, and how interstate surrogacy disputes should be resolved—remain unresolved.
The parents’ attorney, Lee Budner, had argued that a stay would “threaten the continuity of Rumi’s medical care” and “create confusion over medical decision-making authority.” The Supreme Court’s denial avoids that immediate disruption while leaving the underlying legal issues open.
The dispute involves two distinct but connected issues: the decision about whether to terminate the pregnancy, which occurred before birth, and decisions about the child’s medical care after birth. These are legally and medically separate questions.
The disagreement over termination arose when the fetus was diagnosed with a severe cardiac defect. The intended parents sought to invoke the termination clause in the surrogacy agreement; West refused. This pre-birth disagreement does not automatically determine post-birth medical decision-making authority.
After birth, legal parentage determines who has authority to consent to medical treatment. The California court’s ruling that Gilkar and Ahmed are the legal parents gives them that authority under California law. West’s request for a role in medical decisions was part of her broader challenge to the parentage ruling.
The case highlights that surrogacy agreements can address expectations about termination and medical decisions, but the enforceability of those provisions and the authority to make decisions may ultimately depend on court determinations of legal parentage and applicable state law.
No broad nationwide rule should be inferred from this emergency order. The Supreme Court’s denial of a stay application is not a merits decision and does not establish precedent on surrogacy, parentage, or interstate jurisdiction.
Surrogacy law in the United States remains primarily a matter of state law, with significant variation among states. California has a statutory framework for gestational carrier agreements. Texas permits gestational surrogacy under Family Code Chapter 160, Subchapter I, which allows intended parents to validate a gestational agreement in court before birth. Other states have different rules, and some have restrictions.
The Supreme Court’s action does not change any of these state laws. It also does not resolve the question of how courts should handle conflicts between parentage orders from different states. Those issues would require a merits decision from the Supreme Court or legislative action to address definitively.
The California parentage ruling remains in effect. West’s appeal to the Supreme Court could proceed, though the denial of a stay makes it less likely the Court will intervene at this stage. She may pursue further state-court proceedings in California or Texas, or seek other legal avenues to challenge the parentage ruling.
The child’s medical care continues under the authority of his legal parents as determined by the California court. The Texas Supreme Court’s ruling allows for his transfer to a Los Angeles hospital for continued treatment.
The broader litigation may continue to address unresolved questions, including the enforceability of specific provisions in the surrogacy agreement and the extent of any rights West may have. The case remains active, and further court filings and rulings are possible.
Confirmed:
Not Confirmed:
What did the U.S. Supreme Court decide in the surrogate case?
The Supreme Court declined to grant an emergency stay that would have paused a California parentage ruling while West pursues an appeal. Justice Kagan issued the order without a written explanation.
Who are the legal parents in the California ruling?
A California court ruled that Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, the intended parents, are the child’s legal parents.
Why did the surrogate challenge the California parentage ruling?
West argued that California lacked jurisdiction over her and that the ruling denied her due process. She also sought a role in decisions about the child’s medical care.
Why did the surrogate refuse the request to terminate the pregnancy?
West has not publicly explained her reasoning in detail. According to court filings and reporting, she refused to comply with the termination request after the fetal cardiac diagnosis and traveled to Texas to give birth.
Was the baby born in California or Texas?
The baby was born in Dallas, Texas, on August 12, 2026.
Does the Supreme Court ruling change surrogacy law nationwide?
No. The denial of an emergency stay application is not a merits decision and does not establish a nationwide rule. Surrogacy law remains primarily governed by state law.
What is the difference between a surrogate and a gestational carrier?
A gestational carrier does not use her own egg and is not genetically related to the child. A traditional surrogate uses her own egg and is genetically related to the child.
What happens next in the case?
The California parentage ruling remains in effect. West’s appeal may proceed, and further state-court proceedings are possible. The child’s medical care continues under his legal parents’ authority.