A stunning development just unfolded in a U.S. courtroom—and it wasn’t driven by pro‑life attorneys.
In a July 10, 2025 ruling, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking former President Trump’s Executive Order 14160, which aimed to abolish birthright citizenship for children born to non‑citizens. The legal challenge—filed as a class-action by the ACLU—asserted that unborn children of non-citizens are protected under the Constitution. In effect, they argued that denying citizenship at birth would irreparably harm both pregnant immigrants and their unborn babies.
Judge Laplante: “Not a Close Call”
Judge Laplante emphasized the stakes:
“The preliminary injunction is just not a close call to the court. The deprivation of U.S. citizenship and an abrupt change of policy that was longstanding … that’s irreparable harm.”
He underscored the importance of citizenship:
“That’s irreparable harm, citizenship alone,” he told the court. “It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”
His order certified a class of all current and unborn children affected by the executive order and halted implementation indefinitely—pending appeal.
Legal Irony: ACLU on the Side of the Unborn
The ACLU—the vanguard of reproductive rights—filed the lawsuit. Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, celebrated Laplante’s ruling as a major win:
“This is going to protect every single child throughout the country from this lawless, unconstitutional, cruel executive order.”
“This attempt to deny babies their citizenship is as illegal as it is inhumane, and we will keep fighting until we stop this order for good.”
The Legal Contradiction Exposed
For years, pro-life advocates have asserted that unborn children are fully human and deserving of legal protection. Often dismissed as “projections” or “ideological pet projects,” these beliefs were suddenly echoed by pro-abortion legal strategists—albeit in a different legal context.
If unborn children matter enough in immigration law to be included in a federal class-action lawsuit, why are they still denied personhood under other laws?
This is not legal semantics. It’s a constitutional paradox—one that cannot be overlooked or brushed aside.
What This Means for Pro-Life Advocates
This court action signals a shift—and opportunity. The pro-life movement is not merely reactive; it’s prophetic. Now is the time for:
Legal action: File cases that demand recognition of unborn rights across every jurisdiction. Public education: Highlight this contradiction and ask: If the unborn count here, why not there? Legislative advocacy: Push for laws that embody what the court has effectively acknowledged.
A Turning Point in the Debate
Judge Laplante’s ruling did more than block an executive order—it cracked open an ideological lock. When the ACLU is forced to concede that “babies” have rights, the foundation of abortion jurisprudence trembles.
Lawsuits, legislatures, citizens—we are called now to build on this moment. Truth, when spoken in courtrooms and public squares, has profound power. Let’s use this power wisely.
Elizabeth Sutcliffe
Catholic Speaker · Post‑Abortive Advocate · Pro‑Life Educator
Elizabeth Sutcliffe 