Whale Legal Personhood: Could Understanding Whale Language Change the Law?

The growing movement for whale legal personhood argues that if we can understand whale communication, these intelligent marine mammals deserve legal rights and stronger protections.

One day, a whale might take the stand; not with a lawyer, but with its own words.

Thanks to new research, scientists are working on tools to translate sperm whale communication into human language. This innovation is fueling a growing legal conversation: if whales can communicate in ways humans understand, could they also be granted legal rights? The idea, known as “whale legal personhood,” is gaining momentum, and it could reshape how laws protect animals and how people relate to the natural world.

In the waters off Dominica, a small island in the Caribbean, a sperm whale named Rounder gave birth while surrounded by her family. As the baby whale emerged, her relatives supported the birth, holding the newborn above water until her fins unfolded and she could swim. Throughout the process, the whales clicked to each other in patterned sounds, much like Morse code.

These clicks are more than noise. They are a language. And now, scientists are working to understand what the whales are saying.

Project CETI (Cetacean Translation Initiative), founded by marine biologist David Gruber, brings together experts in linguistics, artificial intelligence, robotics, and biology. Their goal is simple but ambitious: build a tool that can translate whale sounds into human language and vice versa. Their focus is on Dominica’s sperm whales, which have a tight-knit society and a rich culture passed down through generations.

The real game-changer isn’t just knowing what whales say, it’s how that knowledge could transform law and policy.

In a new legal paper, Gruber and researchers from the More-than-Human Rights Project at New York University argue that if humans can “undeniably understand” what whales experience, the law may need to change. They suggest that clearer whale communication could strengthen existing protections and inspire the development of new ones.

This is where the concept of “whale legal personhood” comes into play. Legal personhood doesn’t mean whales would be able to vote or pay taxes. It means they could be recognized as having rights. In other words, harming a whale might become a legal offense not because it affects people, but because it violates the whale’s own rights.

Currently, whales are protected under laws such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act in the United States. These laws offer limited help against threats like underwater noise pollution. Despite evidence that loud sounds disrupt whales’ echolocation and communication, government agencies rarely enforce noise restrictions.

In Europe and through the International Maritime Organization, similar rules exist but they’re often ignored or weakly enforced. Now imagine a whale clearly expressing distress or discomfort caused by ship engine noise or military sonar. That direct communication could carry more power in court than secondhand reports from scientists or activists. A whale’s own “testimony,” if translated accurately, could push agencies and judges to take action.

Noise pollution confuses and threatens the culture of whales. Like humans, sperm whales live in complex societies. Different clans speak different dialects, have unique customs, and pass down knowledge. They maintain relationships across generations, care for the young as a group, and avoid other clans even in shared waters.

If whale communication becomes clearer, scientists may be able to document how noise or captivity disrupts these cultural bonds. That would support claims that whales have a right to maintain their way of life, similar to human rights protecting cultural practices.

Some conservationists argue that this right could fall under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While that document protects humans, the spirit of it, protecting the right to participate in culture, might one day apply to whales too, especially if we understand what they’re saying about those losses.

The late Steven Wise, founder of the Nonhuman Rights Project, defined legal personhood as “the capacity to have any rights at all.” So far, animals in the United States have not achieved this status. While laws against cruelty exist, they are often limited and underenforced.

The Nonhuman Rights Project has filed lawsuits to release captive chimpanzees and elephants based on their intelligence, emotions, and social behaviours. But courts have consistently ruled against them.

One reason? Judges argue that rights come with duties. They claim that only beings who understand laws and can follow them should have legal rights.

This is a high bar—one that infants and people with cognitive disabilities don’t meet either. Yet those humans still have rights. That double standard, critics say, highlights a bias in the legal system against nonhuman animals.

If scientists can show that whales understand and fulfill social duties—like helping family during childbirth or caring for young—they could challenge the notion that animals aren’t responsible enough for rights. That could be a turning point for whale legal personhood.

This isn’t just theory. Legal recognition could directly affect how governments treat whales.

Currently, noise pollution is often treated as a nuisance rather than a violation of rights. If whales gain legal standing, noisy ships could be forced to reduce engine noise or change their routes. Sonar testing might be restricted, and companies could face legal consequences for disrupting whale communication.

It might also change how conservation is funded. Protecting whale habitats, once a matter of environmental preference, would become a legal obligation. Whale legal personhood could give conservationists new tools to hold governments and industries accountable.

Could whale testimony influence court decisions? Possibly. Some experts argue that translated whale speech could serve as compelling evidence. If a whale “says” it is suffering from stress or confusion caused by a noisy shipping lane, it could shape court opinions. That emotional weight could move judges more than charts or academic reports ever could.

And it wouldn’t just help whales. It could pave the way for rights for other species, too—from elephants to dolphins to great apes.