Justice Elena Kagan on Tuesday rejected an emergency request from a surrogate in Alaska seeking to block a California parentage order, leaving a medically fragile infant in the legal custody of his intended genetic parents while the broader dispute across three states remains unresolved.
The case marks one of the rare instances where surrogacy law, parental rights, and abortion restrictions collide in federal court. McKenna West, an Alaska nurse and surrogate, had asked the Supreme Court to pause a California ruling that made a California couple the legal parents of the baby she carried, citing concerns over her role in the child’s ongoing medical care and questioning where the case should be heard.
Kagan, who handles emergency applications from California, acted on her own authority and did not refer the matter to the full nine-justice court for consideration. Her rejection of West’s application offers no written explanation—a standard practice when individual justices resolve such urgent requests.
What Happened
The dispute emerged from a gestational surrogacy agreement between West and a California couple seeking to have a child. According to the arrangement, the intended parents held decision-making authority regarding abortion, a provision that became central when medical complications arose.
At approximately 20 weeks of pregnancy, doctors diagnosed the unborn baby with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a severe congenital condition in which the left side of the heart fails to develop normally. The couple initially requested that West terminate the pregnancy, but she declined.
West eventually traveled to Texas, where most abortions are prohibited under state law, to continue the pregnancy. The parents later said they had reconsidered their initial response to the medical diagnosis and decided the pregnancy should proceed, disputing West’s account of their intentions.
The baby was born on August 12 in Dallas and underwent open-heart surgery shortly after birth. Hypoplastic left heart syndrome typically requires multiple operations throughout a patient’s life, and some children later need additional procedures or heart transplantation.
After a California court recognized the couple as legal parents, a Texas judge then dismissed West from litigation concerning the baby’s custody and medical decisions. West filed her emergency petition with the Supreme Court seeking to block the California order while courts examined questions of jurisdiction and her claimed right to remain involved in the child’s treatment.
The Reaction
West’s attorneys argued that enforcing the California judgment deprived her of involvement in decisions about a medically fragile child and could leave her without information about the infant she carried for 37 weeks. They contended the case belonged in Alaska, pointing to her residence and certain provisions in the surrogacy contract.
Attorneys for the parents presented a different picture. They said the couple had remained with their son in Texas and ensured he received lifesaving medical treatment after birth, with plans to continue providing care throughout his life. They warned that additional judicial intervention could create confusion during a critical treatment period.
The parents disputed West’s characterization of their position on the child’s survival. “A right to life is not at issue here,” their legal team stated to the court, also challenging West’s concerns about their trustworthiness as guardians.
Meanwhile, the Texas Supreme Court separately allowed the baby to be transferred from Texas to California for specialized care, concluding that the child’s survival was the overriding legal consideration.
What This Means
Kagan’s denial does not establish national precedent on how abortion provisions in surrogacy agreements should be interpreted when a surrogate objects. It does not determine whether West breached her contract or resolve all remaining disputes between the parties.
The immediate practical effect is narrower but consequential for those involved. The California couple remains the baby’s legal parents, and West has no custody or medical decision-making authority over the child she carried. The case illustrates evolving tensions in family law as gestational surrogacy, medical complexity, and varying state abortion restrictions increasingly intersect in courtrooms.
