Supreme Court Won't Block Custody Ruling in Newborn Heart Case

Justice Elena Kagan on Tuesday declined to block a Texas Supreme Court order that clears the way for a California couple to take custody of a newborn boy from the surrogate who carried him, according to NBC News. Kagan issued the denial in a one-line order with no written opinion, NBC News reported.

The surrogate, McKenna West, had asked the Supreme Court to intervene after a Texas judge dismissed her due-process claims against California, which had awarded custody of the baby to his genetic parents, Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar, NBC News reported.

What Did the Supreme Court Actually Decide?

Kagan is the justice assigned to handle emergency matters arising from California, according to NBC News. West's attorneys filed a request for a stay earlier this month, arguing a "life hangs in the balance," NBC News reported. Kagan denied the stay Tuesday without explanation, leaving the underlying Texas Supreme Court ruling in place.

Why Did the Surrogate Sue in the First Place?

West gave birth to the baby, whom she named Gabriel, in Texas last month, according to NBC News. She fled to Texas after Ahmed and Gilkar asked her to terminate the pregnancy following the discovery of a serious heart defect, NBC News reported. West then argued in Texas court that California had denied her due process by awarding custody to the genetic parents, who call the boy Rumi. A Texas judge dismissed her claims, NBC News reported.

What Does the Texas Supreme Court's Ruling Say?

The Texas Supreme Court ruled last week that the baby could be moved to California, where his parents have medical care arranged, according to the Texas Tribune, as cited by NBC News. The court's ruling stated: "Sustaining the life of the medically fragile child is the paramount concern in this time-sensitive matter," NBC News reported.

Gilkar testified in a Dallas courtroom last month that she and her husband are focused on getting their son the medical help he needs, according to NBC News. "She's making us run from doctor to doctor, state to state with our baby. She's trying to take him," Gilkar said of West, according to court testimony reported by NBC News.

What Is Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome?

The baby was born with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a congenital defect in which one side of the heart is underdeveloped and normal blood flow is prevented, according to NBC News. The condition can become fatal quickly without treatment, NBC News reported. That diagnosis is what prompted Ahmed and Gilkar to raise the option of abortion, according to court documents cited by NBC News, and it is central to both sides' arguments over who can provide the child adequate care.

What Happens Next in the Custody Fight?

With the Supreme Court declining to step in, the Texas Supreme Court's order allowing the parents to take the child to California stands. NBC News did not report any further scheduled proceedings as of Tuesday's order. West's attorneys had framed their appeal around concerns that Gabriel might not receive necessary medical care if he stays in his parents' custody, NBC News reported, while Gilkar has said the couple has care already arranged in California.

Case Timeline at a Glance

• Last month: McKenna West gives birth to the baby in Texas after fleeing California amid the dispute over the heart-defect diagnosis, according to NBC News.
• Last month: Nausheen Gilkar testifies in a Dallas court that she and her husband, Omar Ahmed, are seeking medical care for their son, per NBC News.
• Last week: The Texas Supreme Court rules the baby can be moved to California for care already arranged by the parents, NBC News reported, citing the Texas Tribune.
• Sept. 22, 2026: Justice Elena Kagan denies a stay request, letting the Texas Supreme Court's order stand, according to NBC News.

The dispute has moved through at least two state court systems — Texas and California — before reaching the U.S. Supreme Court on an emergency basis, according to NBC News. No written opinion accompanied Kagan's denial, leaving the legal reasoning behind the decision undisclosed.