The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to block a California court order recognizing a couple as the legal parents of an infant born to a surrogate mother. The surrogate had refused a pregnancy termination request after a severe heart defect diagnosis, sparking an interstate custody and medical dispute.
The high-profile legal battle stems from a surrogacy arrangement between California couple Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar and surrogate mother McKenna West. After a 20-week scan revealed the fetus suffered from hypoplastic left heart syndrome—a severe congenital heart defect where the left side of the heart cannot adequately pump blood—Ahmed and Gilkar asked West to terminate the pregnancy, according to reporting from the BBC.
West refused the request, stating she wanted to keep this precious baby
after learning about available treatment options, the BBC reported based on court filings. West subsequently traveled from California to Texas, where nearly all abortions are restricted, and gave birth to the boy on August 12 in Dallas. While the genetic parents call the infant Rumi, West refers to him as Gabriel.
Supreme Court Action and the California Parentage Ruling
Justice Elena Kagan, who handles emergency applications from California and neighboring states, unilaterally denied West’s emergency request to halt the California judicial ruling, Reuters reported. Kagan provided no rationale for the decision, and the application was not referred to the full Supreme Court.
The dispute escalated after a California trial court in June declared Ahmed and Gilkar to be the legal parents of the child, according to Reuters. West had challenged California’s jurisdiction and argued that her due process rights were violated when she was allegedly brought into the California court on short notice.
In her emergency application to the nation’s highest court, West sought to block the parental recognition order, arguing that without intervention she would lose access to medical information and that the biological parents might transfer the infant out of state. Her legal representation includes attorneys from the conservative advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom, Reuters noted.
Medical Treatment and Conflicting Legal Strategies Across State Lines
The newborn boy has remained hospitalized in Dallas since his birth, undergoing at least one surgical procedure for his heart condition. Untreated hypoplastic left heart syndrome can lead to death within days or weeks, according to data from the U.S.
Early in the proceedings, Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton intervened and won an emergency court order requiring the infant to receive medical care within the state, though he later withdrew from the case, Mezha reported. Meanwhile, a Texas court issued a restraining order barring West from seeing the child, and she was formally dismissed from the Texas court case on September 2.
West’s legal team filed supplemental briefs arguing that an immediate stay was necessary to preserve the child’s life
out of concern that the parents might move the infant to California for palliative or hospice care, Daily Mail reported. Conversely, lawyers for Ahmed and Gilkar maintained in court filings that they remain fully committed to providing the infant with necessary lifesaving medical care.
Unresolved Jurisdictional Questions in Surrogacy Law
The case highlights the complex legal gaps surrounding surrogacy in the United States, where regulations are determined entirely by state laws rather than federal statutes. Ahmed and Gilkar maintained that West breached their surrogacy contract by refusing the termination request and failing to follow agreed-upon medical terms.
Gilkar detailed the couple’s difficult path to parenthood during an August court hearing in Dallas, explaining that they pursued surrogacy after eight failed rounds of in vitro fertilization and a necessary hysterectomy, Daily Mail noted. This was our only option,
Gilkar told the court, adding, We’ve never wanted anything more than this baby.
