No matching text for “dignity” was found in the U.S. Constitution under the strict exact-text coding rule applied in this audit. Any dignity doctrine is judicial or interpretive rather than textual at the federal constitutional level.

However, the constitutions of four U.S. states and the federal territory of Puerto Rico explicitly include Dignity Clauses:

Puerto Rico (1952): “The dignity of the human being is inviolable.” (Puerto Rico Const. art. II, § 1)
Illinois (1970): “To promote individual dignity, communications that portray criminality, depravity or lack of virtue in, or that incite violence, hatred, abuse or hostility toward, a person or group of persons by reason of or by reference to religious, racial, ethnic, national or regional affiliation are condemned.” (Ill. Const. art. I, § 20)
Montana (1972): “The dignity of the human being is inviolable.” (Mont. Const. art. II, § 4)
Louisiana (1974): “Right to Individual Dignity. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. No law shall discriminate against a person because of race or religious ideas, beliefs, or affiliations. No law shall arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably discriminate against a person because of birth, age, sex, culture, physical condition, or political ideas or affiliations. Slavery and involuntary servitude are prohibited, except in the latter case as punishment for crime.” (La. Const. art. I, § 3)
Vermont (2022): “That an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.” (Vt. Const. ch. I, art. 22)

The United States is therefore categorized among 35 UN member states that have no explicit Dignity Clause in their national constitutions. However, Armin Tadayon (2026) details his own Dignity by Design framework, noting that while it is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, dignity is a constitutional value. He “calls on developers, regulators, and institutions to adopt human dignity—not innovation—as the North Star of AI design.”

He builds upon Leslie Meltzer Henry’s 2011 empirical legal study, in which she found over 900 U.S. Supreme Court opinions invoking “dignity” over 220 years. Beginning in the 1940s, she found, the Court shifted from a previous focus on institutional dignity toward personal and collective forms of human dignity, a pattern that has been steadily increasing at a statistically significant rate. Therefore, even a legal system that does not have a Dignity Clause, continues to place human dignity at the center of interpreting constitutional rights.

For further reading:

Armin Tadayon, “Dignity by Design: A Human-Centered Framework for Ethical AI,” Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice 32, no. 1 (2026): 81–143.

Leslie Meltzer Henry, “The Jurisprudence of Dignity,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 160 (2011): 169–233.

Interactive framework