The US Supreme Court Backs Trump v. Barbara – Lawyer Monthly has declined to block a California ruling recognising Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed as the legal parents of a child born to surrogate McKenna West, leaving the parentage order in force while West pursues further legal challenges.
Justice Elena Kagan denied West’s emergency application for a stay on September 22 without providing reasons. The order does not decide the underlying parentage, jurisdiction or contractual disputes on their merits.
The case arose after West agreed to act as a surrogate for Gilkar and Ahmed. During the pregnancy, the fetus was diagnosed with a severe cardiac defect. The couple asked West to terminate the pregnancy, but she refused and later gave birth to the child in Dallas on August 12.
According to court filings reported by Reuters, Gilkar and Ahmed also brought proceedings against West alleging breaches of the surrogacy agreement, including her refusal to terminate the pregnancy.
A California trial court ruled in June that Gilkar and Ahmed were the child’s legal parents and rejected West’s argument that the court lacked jurisdiction over her. California appellate courts subsequently declined to stay that ruling.
West then sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court, arguing that the California judgment was being enforced outside the state and prevented her from participating in decisions concerning the child’s medical care.
Gilkar and Ahmed opposed the application and told the Court that they were committed to securing lifesaving medical treatment for the child.
Kagan’s refusal to grant a stay leaves the California order in effect but does not amount to Supreme Court endorsement of the lower court’s legal reasoning. West may continue to pursue further review, but the Court has declined to suspend the existing parentage determination in the meantime.
That procedural distinction is significant. Emergency stay applications require the Court to decide whether a lower-court order should remain operative while litigation continues; they do not necessarily require the justices to resolve the underlying legal questions.
The case nevertheless raises several substantial family-law issues, including which state has jurisdiction to determine parentage, the legal effect of a surrogacy agreement and who has authority to make Meta $567M Child Mental Health Fund | Lawyer Monthly for a child while competing proceedings are underway.
Jurisdiction is especially important because the dispute has involved California and Texas, while West resides in Alaska. A parentage judgment issued in one state can have immediate consequences elsewhere, particularly when parties seek recognition or enforcement of that order in another jurisdiction.
The dispute also demonstrates the distinction between contractual obligations and legal parentage. A surrogacy agreement can create contractual rights and obligations between intended parents and a surrogate, but disputes over alleged breaches do not necessarily answer the separate question of who the law recognises as the child’s parents.
For When Should You Involve a Solicitor?, the case also illustrates the importance of procedural posture when reporting appellate and Supreme Court decisions. A refusal to grant emergency relief should not be treated as a final judgment on the legality of the underlying order.
The Supreme Court docket records only that West’s application for a stay was denied by Justice Kagan. No reasons were given.
For now, the California judgment recognising Gilkar and Ahmed as the child’s legal parents remains operative. The broader dispute may continue, but the Supreme Court has declined to disturb that legal position at the emergency stage.