Supreme Court Justice Kagan rejects surrogate's bid to halt custody of critically ill infant

Key points

• Justice Elena Kagan rejected an emergency appeal from surrogate McKenna West on September 22, 2026, leaving lower court rulings in favor of the biological parents intact.
• The biological parents, Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar, had requested West to terminate the pregnancy after the fetus was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome in April 2026.
• West refused the abortion, moved to Texas, and gave birth to a boy named Rumi (by the parents) or Gabriel (by West) on August 12, 2026.
• The infant underwent a Norwood procedure, the first of several required surgeries for his condition, at Children’s Hospital in Dallas.
• West sought conservatorship to ensure the child received life-saving care, while the parents argued they were committed to providing that care and were present in the hospital.
• The case involved legal battles in California, Texas, and Alaska, with West arguing the California ruling violated her due process rights.

Background

This dispute emerged after a surrogacy contract between the California couple and West included a provision allowing the parents to request an abortion for a fetus with a severe abnormality. When the diagnosis was confirmed at 20 weeks, the couple requested termination, but West initially agreed and then changed her mind, citing an emotional connection to the child. She enlisted antiabortion activists to fund her move to Texas, where abortion is banned. The case has drawn national attention due to its intersection of surrogacy law, abortion access, and cross-state jurisdictional conflicts. Earlier coverage noted that experts considered Supreme Court intervention unlikely, given the technical legal questions surrounding California’s jurisdiction over the parental rights.

How outlets are covering it

The Texas Tribune and CBS News emphasize the finality of the Supreme Court’s decision and the biological parents’ commitment to the child’s medical care, citing attorney Adam Wolf’s statement that the parents have been 'with their child around the clock' in the hospital. The Washington Post highlights the technical legal issue of whether a California court had jurisdiction to grant parental rights, noting that West’s attorneys argued the ruling violated her 14th Amendment due process rights. West’s attorney, Lincoln Davis Wilson, expressed disappointment but noted that the legal fight prompted the parents to publicly commit to providing lifesaving care, which West viewed as a partial victory. The parents’ attorneys, including Lee Budner, dismissed West’s claims as an attempt to undermine their parental rights and emphasized that the child’s condition remains critical, requiring privacy for the family.

Why it matters

The case underscores unresolved legal gaps in federal surrogacy regulation and the complexities of cross-state custody disputes involving abortion and parental rights. It highlights the tension between contractual agreements in surrogacy and the surrogate’s autonomy, as well as the role of state abortion laws in shaping outcomes for critically ill infants. The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene leaves the biological parents in control, but the dispute may influence future legal standards for surrogacy contracts and the rights of surrogates in cases involving fetal abnormalities.

What to watch

The biological parents are expected to continue managing the child’s medical care, including subsequent surgeries for hypoplastic left heart syndrome. The Texas Supreme Court has also declined to bar the parents from taking the child back to California. West’s legal team may continue to monitor the child’s care, but the immediate custody dispute is resolved. The case may serve as a precedent for future surrogacy disputes involving fetal abnormalities and cross-state jurisdictional conflicts.