A Judicial Irony,

How the far-left Inadvertently Bolstered Rights of the Unborn

In a profound irony that underscores the unpredictable nature of legal battles, a federal judge in New Hampshire has inadvertently advanced the cause of unborn personhood while attempting to safeguard immigrant rights. On July 10, 2025, U.S. District Judge Joseph N. Laplante issued a ruling in the case of Barbara v. Trump, blocking President Donald Trump's Executive Order 14160, which aimed to curtail birthright citizenship for children born (and unborn) to illegal aliens or those on temporary visas. The order, signed mere hours into Trump's second term on January 20, 2025, directed federal agencies to deny citizenship recognition to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent was a citizen or lawful permanent resident, reinterpreting the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause to exclude those not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This executive action reignited a longstanding debate over the amendment's scope, originally ratified in 1868 to ensure citizenship for freed slaves and their descendants, as affirmed in the Supreme Court's 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, which held that children born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents are citizens regardless of parental status.

The Case and the Ruling

The plaintiffs, represented by groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, filed a class action lawsuit arguing that the order violated the 14th Amendment's guarantees of due process and equal protection. They sought to protect not only existing children but also those yet to be born, framing the potential denial of citizenship as irreparable harm. Judge Laplante, a George W. Bush appointee known for his measured approach to judicial overreach, certified a nationwide class that explicitly included "all individuals unborn and born who would be subject to Executive Order 14160." In his order, he stated that "the inclusion of unborn individuals in the protected class is necessary to prevent irreparable harm before birth," emphasizing that deprivation of citizenship constitutes a fundamental injury under the Constitution. This language marks a historic first: a federal court granting legal standing to the unborn under the 14th Amendment in the context of citizenship rights, effectively recognizing them as persons entitled to constitutional protections.

Tracing the Evolution of Personhood in Law

To appreciate the significance, one must trace the evolution of personhood in American jurisprudence. The 14th Amendment's Section 1 provides: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Historically, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), declared that the unborn are not "persons" within the meaning of this amendment, allowing states broad latitude to regulate abortion. However, that decision was overturned in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), which returned abortion regulation to the states and explicitly noted that Roe's personhood analysis was flawed, opening the door for legislatures and courts to reconsider rights of the unborn.

Laplante's ruling builds on this shift. By including the unborn in the class, he invoked the principle of anticipatory harm, a concept rooted in cases like Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), where the Court acknowledged a state's interest in protecting "potential life" from conception onward. Moreover, tort law has long recognized rights of the unborn in contexts outside abortion; for instance, in Bonbrest v. Kotz, 65 F. Supp. 138 (D.D.C. 1946), a federal court first allowed recovery for prenatal injuries, treating the viable fetus as a separate entity deserving legal remedies. Subsequent decisions, such as those under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (18 U.S.C. § 1841), federally criminalize harm to unborn children in certain crimes, defining them as "a child in utero" and granting them victim status. Laplante's order aligns with this trajectory, extending 14th Amendment protections to the unborn to avert the "irreparable harm" of denied citizenship, which he described as "the greatest privilege that exists in the world."

The Unintended Irony for Far-Left Litigants

The irony lies in the plaintiffs' motivations. These litigants, often aligned with far-left causes including reproductive autonomy, invoked "My Body, My Choice" rhetoric to demand protections for the unborn, arguing that excluding future children from the class would perpetuate harm. Yet, by securing this precedent, they have provided pro-life advocates with a powerful tool. If the unborn can claim standing under the 14th Amendment to challenge immigration policies, why not to contest abortion restrictions? This decision echoes equal protection expansions in cases like Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), where the Court recognized fundamental liberties for same-sex couples, but here it flips the script, potentially bolstering arguments for fetal life as a protected interest.

Political and Public Reactions

Political reactions have been swift and polarized. On X, users highlighted the inadvertent boon to conservatives. One post noted, "Unborn Children Given Legal Status!!! THEY HAVE RIGHTS!!! Oops!! Judge Blinded By Trump Hatred Declares The Truth," while another proclaimed, "Liberals Just Certified Personhood and Accidentally Gave the Pro-Life Movement Its Biggest Win Yet." Critics from the right, like Representative Mike Collins, decried the ruling as judicial overreach, stating, "No one elected judges to make nationwide policy," even as they celebrated its implications. Far-left voices, such as the account @DisavowTrump20, praised Laplante for "standing up for the Constitution," but overlooked the rights of the unborn angle. Skeptics questioned the explicit unborn personhood claim, with one user noting, "I can't find anything in his ruling that directly references 'the unborn,'" yet the class definition's inclusion of "future persons" inherently encompasses the unborn at the time of certification.

Broader Implications for Immigration and Reproductive Rights

Broader implications extend to immigration and constitutional law. Trump's EO 14160 challenged over a century of precedent, including Wong Kim Ark, by narrowing "jurisdiction" to exclude children of non-permanent residents, due to the fact Kim Wong Ark’s parent were both legal residents at the time of his birth in San Fransisco. Laplante's injunction, effective nationwide via class certification, circumvents the Supreme Court's recent curbs on universal injunctions in Garland v. CASA de Maryland (2025), where the Court limited such broad relief but preserved class actions as a vehicle for widespread protection. This ruling, paused for seven days to allow appeal, sets the stage for higher court review, potentially reaching the Supreme Court again. If upheld, it could inspire similar class actions in other arenas, from environmental harms to civil liberties.

For abortion debates, this precedent is explosive. States with unborn personhood laws, like Georgia's Living Infants Fairness and Equality Act (2022), which grants tax deductions for unborn children after six weeks, could cite Laplante to federalize protections. Conversely, it undermines arguments in cases like Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), which upheld partial-birth abortion bans by recognizing state interests in unborn life. Pro-choice advocates, by prioritizing immigration justice, have created a double-edged sword that could restrict reproductive choices nationwide.

Unintended Consequences in Legal Evolution

Judge Laplante's order, driven by left-leaning litigants, has forged a conservative victory in the culture wars. It affirms that unintended consequences often shape legal evolution, reminding us that the Constitution's protections, once extended, are hard to retract. As America navigates divided views on life, citizenship, and rights, this ruling may redefine both immigration and reproduction for generations.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a United States Air Force Veteran, father of five and grandfather of three, passionate about this country and the Constitution. 

Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report.