Forum

Do you agree with me that the rights of the helpless and vulnerable must be protected? If you do, then what do you think of this?

Has the court redefined a life threshold? Possibly so. Judge Laplante’s Birthright Citizenship Ruling has set off a firestorm, and it appears unintentional, but nevertheless it is burning across the vast open spaces of the progressive community. Not only has Judge Laplante’s ruling tried to protect birthright citizenship, but it just may have set the stage for the legal standing of the unborn.

In a decision whose consequences may reverberate far beyond immigration law, U.S. District Judge Joseph Normand Laplante has issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against former President Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship for children of noncitizen parents.

While the headlines have focused on immigration, the decision also contains language with potentially historic implications: it formally recognizes a class that includes “future persons”, individuals not yet born at the time of the lawsuit.

The background of the Barbara vs. Trump case is overwhelming, to say the least. On July 10, 2025, Judge Laplante blocked enforcement of Executive Order 14160, which sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States if their parents lacked legal immigration status. This executive action, signed earlier in the year, was set to go into effect on July 27, 2025.

The injunction followed an earlier Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. CASA that limited nationwide injunctions but allowed class-action injunctions, precisely the procedural mechanism Laplante used.

The issue that has been opened up is how the court defined “future persons.” The text of the certification order explicitly states: “The certified class comprises all current and future persons who are born on or after February 20, 2025…”

This language means the injunction applies not only to living infants but also to unborn children who would later be born into the class of affected individuals. In other words, the court recognized the legal protectability of rights accruing to persons not yet born, at least for the narrow purpose of preserving their future citizenship status.

Possibly unknowingly, the court established a potential precedent for unborn standing. Historically, U.S. courts have been cautious about granting legal standing to the unborn as persons.

For instance:

• In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court held that fetuses were not “persons” under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Even after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) overturned Roe’s federal protections for abortion rights, states continued to define personhood differently.
• Fetal homicide statutes in 38 states create criminal liability for harming a fetus but typically exclude abortion and do not confer constitutional personhood.

What makes Judge Laplante’s ruling significant is that, for the first time in a high-profile federal case, a court explicitly acknowledged “future persons” as a certifiable class with protectable interests before birth.

While the order itself carefully limited this recognition to birthright citizenship, its conceptual threshold is new: it treats the legal interests of the unborn as sufficiently real and immediate to justify an injunction on their behalf.

We may be witnessing a significant shift in law. Why this ruling matters for abortion and pro-life litigation is monumental, to say the least.

If the ruling withstands appeal, pro-life advocates could attempt to argue by analogy that unborn children in other contexts, like abortion, also have protectable legal interests that confer standing for lawsuits. For example, counsel could try to file suits on behalf of “future persons” seeking injunctive relief against abortion providers or laws permitting abortion.

Indeed, in the wake of the decision, conservative commentators and activists have already suggested that the court’s logic could be applied to fetal standing in litigation. 

In today’s interview, Steve Eichler, JD, founder of the Patriot Command Center, stated, “Every pro-life organization may have the potential to pursue legal action on behalf of future individuals seeking injunctive relief regarding abortion. This can only be achieved if the ruling endures the appeals procedure. If that occurs, a new class of claimant is created, resulting in a surge of legal actions.”

While these claims likely overstate the scope of the ruling, they underscore the seismic potential of Laplante’s language if higher courts uphold it.

Critically, Judge Laplante did not declare unborn children to be “constitutional persons.” His certification order was a procedural vehicle to ensure that children born after the effective date of the executive order would not have their citizenship rights retroactively denied. However, the wording can be a segue into further action, redefining the extent and meaning of a “constitutional person.”

Moreover:

• The decision explicitly does not implicate abortion law.
• Any attempt to generalize this logic to abortion would require new litigation, new theories of standing, and likely Supreme Court adjudication.
• Even if the case were appealed, the reviewing courts could narrow the “future persons” framing.

Is the definition of the rights of the unborn a threshold moment? Possibly so. Despite these limits, Judge Laplante’s decision may mark the first time a federal court has granted nationwide injunctive protection to a class defined in part by the status of being unborn at the time of suit.

Whether the decision evolves into a new path for pro-life litigation or remains a narrowly tailored procedural precedent will depend on:

• How appellate courts treat the certification.
• Whether other litigants succeed in expanding this reasoning beyond immigration.
• The political and judicial appetite for reexamining fetal legal status post-Dobbs.

One thing is certain: the phrase “future persons,” once largely theoretical, has now entered the lexicon of federal judicial orders. If upheld, it could become a foundation stone for arguments over the legal standing and rights of the unborn in the decades ahead.

Final Word: A liberal judge's broad-brush efforts in preserving the rights of illegal aliens unwittingly safeguarded the rights of unborn children. 

Download: 

Barbara vs Trump -  barbara-v-trump-birthright-citizenship-complaint-new-hampshire.pdf

Judge Laplante’s Birthright Citizenship Ruling  -  orders-in-birthright-citizenship-case.pdf