Surrogate Seeks Faster Supreme Court Stay To Block Moving Newborn From Texas
McKenna West asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, Sept. 14, 2026, for an administrative stay by 12 p.m. Central Tuesday to block moving a newborn from Texas to California for hospice.[1]
West filed an updated brief saying the case is moving faster than expected and that she now fears the baby could be moved out of Texas sooner than previously thought.[1] Justice Elena Kagan on Sept. 11 ordered the commissioning parents to respond to West's emergency application by 3 p.m. Central on Sept. 18.[2] A Dallas County judge on Sept. 2 upheld a sealed California parentage ruling that granted custody and medical decision-making to Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed.[2] After the baby was born in Texas on Aug. 12, a Texas court recognized that California ruling, named Gilkar and Ahmed the child's legal parents, and dismissed West with prejudice.[1]
All parties originally agreed under a surrogacy contract to end the pregnancy after a prenatal diagnosis of hypoplastic left heart syndrome.[2] West later changed her mind and moved the pregnancy to Texas.[2] West says she filed a special appearance in Los Angeles that relied on a forum-selection clause pointing to Alaska.[1] The Los Angeles court treated that filing as a general appearance and entered an ex parte parentage judgment, which West says violated her federal due process rights.[1] Anti-abortion groups have backed West's bid, with Live Action paying travel expenses and groups including the Alliance Defending Freedom offering legal help.[2] Commissioning parent Nausheen Gilkar has testified that she and Omar Ahmed "never wanted anything more than this baby" and described the child's breathing struggles after his first open-heart surgery.[2]
West asked the Court to issue an administrative stay by 12 p.m. Central on Tuesday to prevent an earlier transfer.[1] Justice Kagan's Sept. 11 order asking the parents to respond by 3 p.m. Central on Sept. 18 signals the Court may not rule before West's feared Sept. 17 transfer date.[2]
Show source details & analysis (3 sources)
📌 Key Facts
- McKenna West’s Supreme Court appeal argues the California court’s parentage ruling violated her federal due process rights because she never consented to that court’s jurisdiction (McKenna West).
- West’s filings in California—which she says were a special appearance relying on a forum‑selection clause requiring litigation in Alaska—were treated by the trial court as a general appearance, an action she says led to an ex parte parentage judgment for the commissioning parents (Los Angeles Superior Court).
- On Friday, September 11, 2026, Justice Elena Kagan ordered Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed to respond to West’s emergency application by 3 p.m. Central on September 18, 2026, signaling the Court will not act before the roughly September 17 date West fears the baby could be moved to California for hospice (Justice Elena Kagan).
- Surrogate West filed an updated brief on Monday, September 14, 2026 saying the case is moving faster than anticipated and asking the Court for an administrative stay by 12 p.m. Central on Tuesday, September 15, 2026 because she now fears the baby may be moved out of Texas earlier than expected (updated brief).
- Dallas County District Judge Ashley Wysocki on September 2, 2026 upheld a sealed California ruling that granted custody and medical decision‑making to Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed (Dallas County District Judge Ashley Wysocki).
- After the baby was born in Texas on August 12, 2026, a Texas court recognized the California parentage ruling, named the commissioning couple as the child’s legal parents, and dismissed West from the case with prejudice (a Texas court).
- West says the newborn could be removed from Texas to California around September 17, 2026 “for hospice” despite her assertion that the child’s heart condition is treatable (September 17).
- All parties initially agreed under the surrogacy contract to terminate the pregnancy after a hypoplastic left heart syndrome diagnosis, but West later changed her mind and moved the pregnancy to Texas (hypoplastic left heart syndrome diagnosis).
- Anti‑abortion groups have been involved in West’s case: Live Action helped pay for her travel to Texas, and Alliance Defending Freedom, the American Association of Pro‑Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and Americans United for Life are backing her Supreme Court bid (Live Action).
- Commissioning parent Nausheen Gilkar has testified that she and Omar Ahmed “never wanted anything more than this baby,” disputing West’s allegation they would deny lifesaving care and describing the child’s breathing struggles after his first open‑heart surgery (Nausheen Gilkar).
📰 Source Timeline (3)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- On Monday, September 14, 2026, surrogate McKenna West filed an updated brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, saying the case is moving faster than anticipated and asking for an administrative stay by 1 p.m. Eastern on Tuesday, September 15.
- West and her legal team now say they fear the baby may be moved out of Texas earlier than previously expected, heightening the urgency of their stay request.
- The Fox News piece reiterates that West’s emergency application argues California courts violated federal due process by treating her jurisdictional challenge as consent to jurisdiction, leading to an ex parte parentage judgment for the commissioning parents.
- The article details that West had entered a special appearance in Los Angeles Superior Court, relying on a forum-selection clause requiring litigation in Alaska, but the California trial court ruled her filings amounted to a general appearance.
- Fox News notes that after the baby was born in Texas on August 12, 2026, a Texas court recognized the California parentage ruling, named the commissioning couple as legal parents, and dismissed West from the case with prejudice.
- The article clarifies that McKenna West's Supreme Court appeal argues the California court's parentage ruling violated her due process rights because she never consented to that court's jurisdiction.
- Justice Elena Kagan on Friday, September 11, 2026, ordered Gilkar and Ahmed to respond to West's emergency application by 4 p.m. ET on September 18, signaling the Court will not act before the roughly September 17 date West fears the baby could be moved to California hospice.
- The piece specifies that Dallas County District Judge Ashley Wysocki on September 2, 2026, upheld a sealed California ruling that granted custody and medical decision-making to Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed.
- The article details West's claim that the newborn could be removed from Texas to California around September 17 "for hospice" despite what she calls a treatable heart condition.
- It expands on the role of anti-abortion groups, noting Live Action's financial assistance for West to travel to Texas, and that Alliance Defending Freedom, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and Americans United for Life are backing her Supreme Court bid.
- The story recounts that all parties initially agreed to terminate the pregnancy under the surrogacy contract after the hypoplastic left heart syndrome diagnosis, but West later changed her mind and moved the pregnancy to Texas.
- Gilkar is quoted testifying that she and Ahmed "never wanted anything more than this baby," disputing West's allegation that they would deny lifesaving care and describing the child's breathing struggles after his first open-heart surgery.