The Road to Personhood – Native News Online

Guest Opinion

On November 6, 2025, the Colorado River Tribes passed an ordinance recognizing the personhood of the Colorado River. Not only now, but acknowledging that it has always had personhood.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Tribal Council of the Colorado River Indian Tribes that the Colorado River always has been and will always be a person under tribal law and will be entitled to the protections under tribal law befitting this status.

Personhood of natural objects like rivers and trees has long been recognized in tribal law, stories, and traditions. In Western law, however, the concept of personhood is still developing.

Legal Personhood

It was not until 1879 that Native Americans were given legal status in America as “persons.” That is not to say anything like citizenship or voting rights; it was simply a determination as to whether Native Americans were “persons” under U.S. law.

Luther Standing Bear was put on trial for trying to return to his homeland despite being under arrest for nothing other than being a Ponca citizen. He was returning to his homeland in Nebraska with his son’s body to honor his son’s wishes to be buried there. I wrote about this case, which is rarely taught in law schools, last April.

Corporations had a much easier time becoming recognized as “persons” under U.S. law.

Early Concepts of Personhood: The concept of personhood has its roots in Roman law, where the term persona was used to denote a legal entity capable of holding rights and duties. This concept was further developed during the Renaissance in France and Germany, where scholars began to use persona in a distinct legal sense, laying the groundwork for modern legal personhood.

Corporate Personhood in American Law: The idea of corporate personhood in the United States can be traced back to the early 19th century. In the 1819 case of Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, the Supreme Court recognized corporations as having legal rights similar to those of individuals. However, the 1886 case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company is often cited as a key moment in the establishment of corporate personhood, although the Court’s decision did not explicitly grant corporations personhood rights.

The attorney for Southern Pacific, Conkling, was one of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment. When Conkling argued that the drafters of the 14th Amendment had changed the language from “citizens” to “persons” specifically to protect corporations, the claim carried weight with the justices, though they remained unconvinced.

Legal scholar Adam Winkler documents that Howard Jay Graham, a leading expert on the Fourteenth Amendment, later researched Conkling’s claim and found it was completely fabricated. Apparently there was never any mention of “corporations,” or anything other than the word “person,” used by the drafting committee. Graham found Conkling’s claim that “person” was meant to include corporations within Fourteenth Amendment protection was “a deliberate, brazen forgery.”

Thus, the idea of personhood for corporations began as a fabrication that ended up in the headnotes and eventually took on a life of its own.

Expansion of Corporate Rights: Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has expanded the rights of corporations, treating them as “persons” under the law. This has allowed corporations to claim protections under the Constitution, including rights to free speech, religious freedom, and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The concept of corporate personhood remains a contentious issue in legal and political debates. Critics argue that it grants excessive power to corporations, allowing them to influence politics and society disproportionately. Proponents argue that corporate personhood is necessary for businesses to function effectively and to protect the rights of shareholders and employees.

Beyond Corporations

Personhood Beyond Corporations: While corporate personhood is a prominent aspect of legal personhood, the concept extends to other entities as well. Some legal scholars and activists have argued for recognizing personhood rights for animals, natural entities like rivers, and even artificial intelligence systems.

Nature and Personhood

Justice William O. Douglas of the U.S. Supreme Court did not go so far as to bestow personhood on nature, but he famously said in his dissent in Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 741 (1972), that “environmental objects” should be able to sue. He wrote:

“Contemporary public concern for protecting nature’s ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation.”

That same year, Christopher Stone wrote an essay entitled “Do Trees Have Standing?” If there were a top ten list of law review articles of the century, this one would have to make it. It sparked a movement in U.S. law to consider personhood for nature through what is now known as the rights of nature movement.

Unlike corporations, society has literally personified nature since the term “Mother Nature” first came into use in the 12th or 13th centuries, along with the term Mother Gaia. Greek mythology further identified the goddess of the harvest, Demeter, as a mother whose child was abducted by Hades. In her grief, Demeter stopped all harvesting. Zeus intervened and returned her daughter, and the earth began to grow again. However, she had to return to Hades once a year, and it is during that time that winter occurs on earth.

By 1266, the term “Mother Nature” was widely used, personifying nature.

Indigenous peoples of the Americas have had a sense of personhood for nature since time immemorial. This kinship with nature existed long before the 12th or 13th centuries (often referred to as the Dark Ages in Europe). This worldview acknowledges that we are all part of nature and that we are all related. What happens to nature happens to humans. There is an Indigenous rights-of-nature worldview that aligns with particular practices.

One such practice is reciprocity. For example, Plains tribes are culturally and spiritually bound to care for bison, and the bison takes care of them. Every part of the bison is used for food, clothing, and shelter. The movement to restore bison herds is being led by Plains tribes who honor this reciprocal relationship.

One of the most basic ideas in the rights-of-nature movement is respecting nature’s right to exist. Respecting the right of beautiful swans, birds, rabbits, deer, and turtles is easy, but this also includes respecting the right of venomous snakes and coyotes (and, for my friends in Texas, wild boars) to exist. Indigenous rights-of-nature traditions also call for balance and harmony, recognizing that populations out of balance have broad implications for human life.

Tribal nations are passing their own ordinances to give rights to parts of nature considered sacred and in need of protection. The White Earth Band of Ojibwe’s recognition of the rights of manoomin (wild rice) is one of the first tribal ordinances to give a form of “personhood” to a part of nature. Other tribal nations, including the Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, the Ho-Chunk Nation, the Yurok Tribe, the Nez Perce Tribe, and the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, have passed ordinances recognizing rights in nature.

Personhood and Rights

Indigenous rights-of-nature practices and traditions present a view of personhood that has been adopted in tribal ordinances and judicial systems. There is now a rights-of-nature movement underway internationally, with several countries recognizing the rights of nature, rivers, and other natural entities. The movement has even reached the U.S. judicial system. The Colorado River and Florida waterways have both appeared as parties in litigation in the United States in recent years.

Respect for nature is at the heart of this movement. We cannot live without an environment that is in balance, yet for all its power, nature remains vulnerable and in need of protection. If the measure of a society is how well it takes care of its most vulnerable members, we should consider whether elements of this movement point toward our collective future.

[This is an updated republication of an “Unintended Consequences” article, March 3, 2024.]

To read more articles by Professor Sutton go to:  https://profvictoria.substack.com/ 

Professor Victoria Sutton (Lumbee) is a law professor on the faculty of Texas Tech University. In 2005, Sutton became a founding member of the National Congress of American Indians, Policy Advisory Board to the NCAI Policy Center, positioning the Native American community to act and lead on policy issues affecting Indigenous communities in the United States.

Related