Supreme Court Declines to Hear Surrogacy Custody Dispute
The Supreme Court declined review of a surrogacy custody and medical decision case.
Why it matters: This leaves unsettled the legal rights of surrogates versus intended parents, impacting family law and reproductive rights. It raises questions about enforcement of surrogacy contracts and medical decision authority post-birth.
- On Sept. 22, 2026, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case involving California couple Omar Ahmed, Nausheen Gilkar, and surrogate McKenna West.
- The baby was born with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a rare congenital heart defect affecting fewer than 1,000 U.S. births annually.
- The surrogacy contract allowed intended parents to request abortion if fetal abnormalities were detected; West refused and relocated to Texas to give birth in August 2026.
- California and Texas courts recognized Ahmed and Gilkar as legal parents; Justice Elena Kagan denied West’s request for a stay in the Supreme Court.
On September 22, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a custody dispute involving Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar, a couple from California, and their surrogate, McKenna West. The dispute concerns parental rights and medical decisions after the birth of their child diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a serious heart defect affecting fewer than 1,000 newborns annually in the U.S.
The surrogacy agreement included a clause permitting the intended parents to request an abortion if prenatal tests revealed significant fetal abnormalities. After this diagnosis, Ahmed and Gilkar sought an abortion, but West refused and moved to Texas, where she carried the pregnancy to term, giving birth in August 2026.
Following the birth, West sought legal custody and raised concerns about the intended parents’ ability to provide care for the child. However, courts in California and Texas established Ahmed and Gilkar as the child's legal parents, consistent with the terms of the surrogacy contract and state statutes recognizing intended parents’ rights.
West petitioned the Supreme Court to issue a stay—temporary relief preventing enforcement of the custody order—which Justice Elena Kagan denied. This effectively upheld the lower courts' rulings and left the custody and parental rights as previously decided.
This case highlights the complex intersection of surrogacy contracts, medical decision-making rights, and parental custody, especially when disagreements arise after a child's birth involving serious medical conditions. Legal terms such as a stay refer to suspending court orders temporarily, and custody dispute concerns which party holds legal rights and responsibilities for a child’s care. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case maintains current legal frameworks but leaves significant issues unresolved for future cases.
For further context on surrogacy law and parental rights, see legal analyses at Law360 and court coverage at Courthouse News.
By the numbers:
- Sept. 22, 2026 — Date Supreme Court declined to hear the case
- Fewer than 1,000 — Annual U.S. births diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome
Yes, but: While the Supreme Court denied review, some lower courts continue to refine surrogacy law, indicating ongoing legal evolution.
What's next: The case may influence state legislatures and family courts grappling with surrogacy and medical decision issues in the coming years.