Supreme Court Justice Kagan Rejects Surrogate's Emergency Bid In Cross-State Custody Case
Justice Elena Kagan on Tuesday, September 22, 2026, denied surrogate McKenna West's emergency request to block a California parentage order in a cross-state custody fight over a seriously ill infant.[1]
Kagan handled the application alone and issued a brief, unexplained denial, as is common in single-justice emergency rulings.[1] The intended parents, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, said they have provided around-the-clock care in a pediatric intensive care unit and warned Court intervention would cause "chaos and confusion" about that care.[1] West told the Court the California parentage order violated her due process rights because the state courts lacked jurisdiction over her.[1]
A California court issued the parentage order backing Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, prompting West to seek emergency relief at the Supreme Court.[1] The Texas Supreme Court had cleared moving the baby to California, but the couple's attorney said the child remained hospitalized in Texas the morning Kagan denied the application.[1]
A losing party can reapply to another justice after a solo denial, but that option is rare and failed in a recent high-profile attempt by Peter Navarro in 2024.[1]
Show source details & analysis (2 sources)
📌 Key Facts
- On Tuesday, September 22, 2026, Justice Elena Kagan denied surrogate McKenna West’s emergency application, declining to halt the California court order backing biological parents Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed. Justice Elena Kagan
- Kagan handled the application on her own and did not refer it to the full Court; the order denying relief contained no explanation, which the article notes is typical for such emergency actions. order denying relief
- West’s Supreme Court argument said California’s parentage order violated her due process rights because the California court lacked jurisdiction over her. due process rights
- The intended parents’ partially redacted response said they have been providing around-the-clock care for the baby in a pediatric intensive care unit and warned that Supreme Court intervention would cause “chaos and confusion” about that care. pediatric intensive care unit
- In a final reply brief on Monday, September 21, 2026, West’s lawyers — including Alliance Defending Freedom — argued the Texas Supreme Court had cleared the way for the baby’s transfer from Texas to California and warned the couple could consider “palliative care” without Supreme Court intervention. Alliance Defending Freedom
- Despite the Texas Supreme Court’s clearance, the couple’s attorney said the child remained hospitalized in Texas as of the morning of Tuesday, September 22, 2026. Texas Supreme Court
- The Court set the parents’ response deadline for September 18, 2026, after West’s lawyers had flagged September 17 as critical because they said the baby could be taken to hospice in California by then, signaling the Court was unlikely to meet that earlier timeline. parents’ response deadline
- The article notes that a losing party can reapply to another justice after a single-justice denial, but that is rare and cites Peter Navarro’s failed 2024 attempt as a recent example. Peter Navarro’s failed 2024 attempt
📰 Source Timeline (2)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- On Tuesday, September 22, 2026, Justice Elena Kagan denied surrogate McKenna West’s emergency application, declining to halt the California court order backing biological parents Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed.
- West’s Supreme Court argument centered on a claim that California’s parentage order violated her due process rights because, she said, the California court lacked jurisdiction over her.
- The intended parents’ partially redacted response told the Court they have been providing around-the-clock care for the baby in a pediatric intensive care unit and warned that Supreme Court intervention would cause “chaos and confusion” regarding that care.
- West’s lawyers, including Alliance Defending Freedom, argued in a final reply brief on Monday, September 21, 2026, that the Texas Supreme Court had already cleared the way for the baby’s transfer from Texas to California and warned the couple would be free to consider “palliative care” without Supreme Court intervention.
- As of the morning of Tuesday, September 22, 2026, the child remained hospitalized in Texas, according to the couple’s attorney, despite the Texas Supreme Court having cleared the transfer.
- The article details that Kagan set the parents’ response deadline for September 18, after a date West’s lawyers had flagged (September 17) as critical because they said the baby could be taken to hospice in California by then, indicating the Court was unlikely to act on that earlier timeline.
- Justice Kagan handled the emergency application on her own and did not refer it to the full Court; the order denying relief contained no explanation, which is typical for such emergency actions.
- The piece notes that, although a losing party can reapply to another justice after a single-justice denial, doing so is rare and cites Peter Navarro’s failed 2024 attempt as a recent example.