The Legal Path to AI Personhood Is Already Being Built
Courts are being asked whether artificial intelligence systems can hold constitutional rights. A live dispute between Anthropic and the Pentagon hinges on this question, with Anthropic arguing that forcing a company to build tools it finds ethically problematic amounts to compelled speech-a potential First Amendment violation. The answer courts provide could reshape how AI is regulated and who bears responsibility when these systems cause harm.
The legal groundwork for AI personhood already exists, scattered across corporate law, animal rights cases, and First Amendment doctrine. The concept of "person" has never been fixed. Corporations are persons. Rivers are persons. An elephant at the Bronx Zoo was argued to be a person before New York's highest court. Every expansion has followed the same pattern: it seemed absurd until it didn't.
How Corporations Became Persons
The template is corporate personhood. An 1886 Supreme Court case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, appeared to establish that corporations were "persons" under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court's actual opinion never reached that constitutional question. Instead, the court reporter-a former railroad executive-inserted into his published notes a statement from the chief justice that the Fourteenth Amendment protects corporations. Through this irregular move, the idea entered constitutional law.
The principle expanded. Citizens United v. FEC in 2010 ruled that corporate political spending is protected by the First Amendment, holding that corporations have a right to free speech because they are "associations of citizens" holding the collective rights of individual citizens.
This reasoning is directly relevant to AI. If AI companies claim their models produce constitutionally protected speech, the logic that corporate speech rights extend through the organization to the product is a short step. First Amendment protection is what legal scholars call "the gold standard" for avoiding regulation.
What Animal Rights Cases Show
Animal rights litigation offers a different precedent, rooted not in legal fiction but in cognitive capacity. Happy, a 51-year-old Asian elephant at the Bronx Zoo, was the subject of a case forcing New York's courts to reflect on what rights human society owes highly intelligent animals.
In June 2022, New York's highest court ruled 5-2 that Happy lacked constitutional rights. But the two dissenting opinions matter more than the majority decision. The dissenters argued that "if humans without full rights and responsibilities under the law may invoke the writ to challenge an unjust denial of freedom, so too may any other autonomous being, regardless of species."
The dissent articulated a principle that does not stop at elephants. The argument rested on autonomy, not biology. AI systems do not have autonomy in the way Happy does, but the legal category the dissent proposed was broad enough to leave the door open.
The Gaps in Current Law
Courts have already been asked whether AI can hold intellectual property rights. In Thaler v. Vidal, a man sought to list his AI system DABUS as the sole inventor on patent applications. In 2022, the Federal Circuit affirmed that the Patent Act requires inventors to be natural persons. In March 2026, the Supreme Court declined to hear a parallel copyright case, leaving standing the requirement of human authorship for copyright protection.
These cases are narrower than they appear. Courts rejected AI inventorship based on statutory language, not constitutional principle. Congress could change the statutes. The question of whether AI outputs constitute protected speech is a constitutional question that statutory text cannot answer.
Three Practical Consequences
Liability. If an autonomous system causes harm and no human can be identified as directly responsible, a legal gap exists. The European Parliament explored creating "electronic persons" status for autonomous robots so they could be held responsible for damages. Personhood fills the gap.
Property and assets. A legal person can own property, hold financial instruments, and enter into contracts. Autonomous trading systems already control assets on behalf of their operators. The question is: who legally owns those assets if the system acts without direct human instruction?
Regulation. Regulations designed to mitigate AI risks will, by technical necessity, include limits on what AI systems are allowed to output. But this raises First Amendment concerns. An emerging body of scholarship argues that AI outputs could be protected speech. If that view prevails, safety laws would face the highest level of constitutional scrutiny.
The Expansion Continues
In 2017, the New Zealand Parliament recognized the Whanganui River as a legal person with "all the rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a legal person." Corporations, bodies of water, and other animals in countries around the world have been recognized as persons. The concept has expanded beyond biological life, beyond consciousness, beyond anything resembling a mind.
It has expanded wherever legal systems found it instrumentally useful. There will be a day when a judge is asked to declare that some form of AI has rights. Petitioners will argue that the AI exhibits awareness at or beyond the level of humans. Respondents will argue that personhood is reserved for persons. Petitioners will point to corporations as paper fictions that today have more rights than any AI.
History suggests the petitioners will, over time, win something. The question is what.
For legal professionals, understanding how courts are likely to approach AI personhood is becoming essential. AI for Legal professionals covers the constitutional and regulatory frameworks shaping this debate, while the AI Learning Path for Paralegals offers practical grounding in how AI is already affecting legal practice and research.
Your membership also unlocks:
