Key Highlights
- Surrogate McKenna West’s petition for Supreme Court review of her custody battle with the biological parents was rejected by Justice Elena Kagan on Tuesday.
- The decision effectively ends West’s legal challenge at the federal level, leaving lower court rulings in favor of the biological parents intact.
- The case centered on a surrogacy agreement dispute after West gave birth and sought to retain parental rights contrary to the contract terms.
Supreme Court Declines to Hear Surrogate’s Custody Appeal
Surrogate McKenna West has exhausted her highest judicial avenue after Justice Elena Kagan, acting in her capacity as the Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit, denied her application for a stay pending certiorari review on Tuesday. The ruling marks the final chapter in a closely watched legal dispute that pitted a gestational carrier against the intended parents of the child she carried and delivered. TMZ first reported the development, noting that the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene leaves the existing lower court judgment fully in force.
Legal Battle Stemmed from Surrogacy Agreement Dispute
The litigation originated from a surrogacy arrangement in which West agreed to carry a child for the biological parents. Following the birth, West initiated legal proceedings seeking to establish parental rights over the infant, challenging the enforceability of the surrogacy contract she had signed. Lower courts consistently ruled in favor of the biological parents, upholding the validity of the agreement and awarding them legal custody. West’s legal team subsequently petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the case presented novel constitutional questions regarding the rights of gestational carriers versus the enforceability of assisted reproduction contracts.
Justice Kagan’s Unilateral Rejection Ends Federal Prospects
As the Circuit Justice overseeing emergency matters arising from the Ninth Circuit, Justice Kagan possessed the authority to rule on the emergency application unilaterally without referring it to the full Court. Her denial of the stay application signals that the Court found insufficient grounds to disturb the lower court’s custody determination while the petition for a writ of certiorari was pending. In practical terms, the rejection means the biological parents retain full legal custody of the child, and West’s attempt to overturn the surrogacy agreement through the federal judiciary has concluded.
Why This Matters
This outcome underscores the current judicial tendency to enforce gestational surrogacy contracts as written, prioritizing the contractual intent of the intended parents over a surrogate’s post-birth change of heart. While surrogacy laws vary significantly by state, the Supreme Court’s decision not to intervene suggests a reluctance to federalize what has traditionally been a matter of state family law. For the assisted reproductive technology industry, the ruling provides a degree of certainty that properly executed agreements will withstand constitutional challenge at the highest level. Future disputes will likely continue to be adjudicated in state courts unless a clear circuit split emerges on federal constitutional grounds.
Dylan Efron Reacts to Derek Hough’s Hilarious Tyler Cameron ‘DWTS’ Flub and Viral TikToks
Frequently Asked Questions
- Who is McKenna West?
- McKenna West is a gestational surrogate who entered into a surrogacy agreement with the biological parents of a child she carried and gave birth to. She subsequently challenged the contract in court seeking parental rights.
- What was Justice Elena Kagan’s role in this decision?
- As the Circuit Justice assigned to the Ninth Circuit, Justice Kagan ruled unilaterally on West’s emergency application for a stay pending Supreme Court review. Her denial effectively ends the case at the federal level.
- Does this ruling set a national precedent for surrogacy disputes?
- No. The denial of a stay application is not a ruling on the merits and does not create binding precedent. Surrogacy law remains primarily governed by individual state statutes and case law.
