AN ACT Relating to the recognition of legal personhood by a governmental entity;
HB2029 would prohibit any governmental entity in Washington from granting or recognizing legal personhood for a wide range of nonhuman entities. The bill expressly includes artificial intelligence, inanimate objects, bodies of water, land, real property, atmospheric gas, astronomical objects, weather, plants, nonhuman animals, and any other member of a taxonomic domain that is not a natural person. In effect, it seeks to prevent state or local government action that could treat these entities as having the legal rights and obligations of a person under Washington law.
The bill also adds definitions for several terms used in the prohibition, including “body of water,” “governmental entity,” “land,” “legal personhood,” and “real property.” These definitions are intended to clarify the scope of the restriction and ensure that the term “legal personhood” is understood to mean the rights and obligations associated with a natural person or other legal person under state law. The measure is framed as a categorical limitation on governmental recognition of personhood status for nonhuman entities.
If enacted, HB2029 would amend Washington law by adding a new section to chapter 1 RCW that limits the authority of courts, the Legislature, and state agencies to recognize legal personhood in nonhuman entities. It would not create new rights for people or entities; rather, it would remove or foreclose a potential basis for legal claims or policy arguments that certain natural features, animals, AI systems, or other nonhuman entities should be treated as legal persons by the state. The bill could affect future litigation, environmental or animal-rights advocacy, and any governmental efforts to assign person-like legal status to nonhuman subjects.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the overall sentiment appears to be straightforward and policy-driven rather than heavily contested in the available record. The bill’s language suggests a clear intent to draw a bright line against expanding legal personhood beyond natural persons and existing legal persons. Because no committee discussion or voting history is provided, there is no documented support or opposition in the supplied materials, though the subject matter itself is likely to attract differing views from proponents of AI regulation, environmental personhood, or animal-rights theories versus those favoring a strict traditional definition of personhood.
The main point of contention is the breadth of the prohibition and the entities it covers. Supporters would likely view the bill as preventing unintended legal consequences from extending personhood to AI, natural features, or animals, while critics may argue it is overly broad, could interfere with emerging legal theories involving environmental protection or animal welfare, and may preempt future policy innovation. The inclusion of artificial intelligence and natural features such as bodies of water and weather suggests the bill is aimed at a wide range of possible personhood claims, which may be controversial among advocates for environmental or technological legal recognition.