Source reporting: Dallas Express
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has requested a response to an emergency application arising from a multistate surrogacy dispute that includes sealed proceedings in Dallas County, according to the Dallas Express. The response is due September 18, but the request does not mean the Court has granted a stay or agreed to review the merits.
Surrogate McKenna West is asking the Court to pause a Los Angeles County parentage judgment while she prepares a petition for review. She argues that the California court lacked personal jurisdiction over her and misinterpreted a limited appearance as consent to decide parentage. The California judgment named Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar, the child’s intended and genetic parents, as his legal parents.
The infant, whom West calls Gabriel and the intended parents call Rumi, was born August 12 with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a serious congenital heart defect. West had declined a request to terminate the pregnancy before birth, the Dallas Express reported.
A Dallas County court issued two temporary orders on August 11. One gave Ahmed and Gilkar custody and medical decision-making authority while restricting West’s contact with the child and access to his medical information. A separate order required medically indicated stabilizing and life-sustaining care. Doctors performed the first-stage Norwood procedure on August 17 after the intended parents approved it.
According to West’s Supreme Court filing, a Dallas judge later gave effect to the California judgment and dismissed her from the Texas case with prejudice on September 2. That Dallas order is sealed, so its contents are not independently available. West says a stay would suspend the California judgment and allow her to ask the Dallas court to restore her as a party; it would not decide legal parentage or custody.
West’s filing also alleges the infant could be moved to hospice. The Dallas Express emphasized that this is an asserted concern, not a documented medical directive or announced plan. Gilkar previously testified that she and Ahmed intended to approve additional procedures when medically appropriate.
The case has Texas significance because a Dallas court’s authority, medical-care orders and recognition of an out-of-state judgment are directly implicated. It also raises broader due-process questions about jurisdiction and the treatment of competing claims in surrogacy disputes. The Supreme Court had not ruled when the source article was published.