This project builds a comprehensive, interactive public resource mapping every intersection between artificial intelligence and First Amendment doctrine across all six clauses and their implied rights. Mentees will research existing precedent, identify novel legal questions, and produce in-depth analyses that serve as both a reference taxonomy and a foundation for future publications in tech policy outlets and law reviews.
About the project
Most existing work on AI and the First Amendment focuses narrowly on generative AI and speech. The full scope of the First Amendment extends across six clauses (establishment, free exercise, speech, press, assembly, petition), an implied right of association, and dozens of doctrinal frameworks that courts apply across these rights. AI intersects with each of these in ways that remain largely unmapped. This project systematically works through those intersections. On one axis: the full doctrinal architecture of the First Amendment, including explicit rights, implied rights, and the tests and frameworks courts use to adjudicate them. On the other axis: the full scope of AI as a technology, from generative AI and recommendation algorithms to facial recognition, predictive policing, agentic systems, and surveillance infrastructure. Mentees can approach the research by First Amendment clause cluster (taking a group of rights and mapping AI across them) or by AI function (taking a category of AI activity and mapping it across all First Amendment rights). The shared goal is comprehensive coverage. For each intersection, mentees identify the relevant precedent, extract the doctrinal takeaways, assess how AI changes the analysis, and flag novel questions that existing doctrine leaves unresolved. The output is both descriptive (what does the law say now?) and analytical (where does doctrine break down when applied to AI?). The primary deliverable is a public-facing interactive web resource that organizes the full taxonomy, provides general explainers on each concept, and hosts in-depth analyses of specific intersection points. Secondary deliverables include articles suitable for tech policy publications and drafts that could develop into law review notes or blog posts. The resource is designed to be a durable reference for researchers, advocates, policymakers, and students engaging with AI and constitutional law.
See more details in the project proposal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rKP6JiqVM06C66j5VCWSYsSXpJrc-1hMVBMM6A-2t7Q/edit?usp=sharing
Theory of change
AI regulation at every level of government faces constitutional constraints. Disclosure mandates, safety requirements, content restrictions, and transparency obligations all interact with First Amendment doctrine in ways that determine whether they survive legal challenge. The xAI v. Bonta litigation, the wave of state deepfake and AI labeling bills, and the ongoing Section 230 and algorithmic curation cases all involve First Amendment questions that will shape the legal environment for AI governance for decades. A comprehensive mapping of how AI intersects with the full scope of the First Amendment equips the AI safety community, policymakers, and litigators with the doctrinal foundation they need to design regulations that are both effective and constitutionally durable. Without this foundation, well-intentioned AI safety measures risk being struck down, creating an adverse precedent that constrains future regulatory efforts.
Your role
Mentees will work as independent researchers with structured guidance. Each mentee selects a research area (either a cluster of First Amendment rights or a category of AI activity) and conducts a systematic doctrinal analysis across the relevant intersections. The work requires sustained engagement with primary legal sources: reading judicial opinions, law review articles, treatises, and constitutional law scholarship. Mentees should expect to spend significant time with these sources directly rather than relying on AI-generated summaries. The mentor may pose questions about the material during check-ins to ensure genuine comprehension and to develop the mentee's capacity for doctrinal reasoning. Weekly check-ins will focus on analytical direction, source identification, and draft review. Mentees will share their progress with one another to identify connections across their respective research areas. The project follows a three-phase arc: weeks 1-3 for foundational reading and scope mapping, weeks 4-8 for deep doctrinal research and drafting analyses, and weeks 9-12 for assembling the public resource and preparing publication-ready pieces. Final outputs will be clearly attributed to each mentee. Mentees will have the opportunity to develop their analyses into standalone publications for tech policy outlets or law review submissions.
Prerequisites
Required: strong reading comprehension and analytical writing skills. Willingness to engage deeply and sustained with legal scholarship, judicial opinions, and constitutional doctrine. Ability to synthesize complex material and explain it clearly to a general audience. This project will have the highest yield for someone who wants to attend law school and pursue constitutional law, information law, or technology policy. Pre-law undergraduates, recent graduates considering law school, and graduate students in adjacent fields (political science, philosophy, communications, public policy) are all strong candidates. Current law students are also welcome. Technical backgrounds are welcome if paired with a genuine interest in constitutional doctrine. The core requirement is the capacity and willingness to read deeply, build real subject-matter expertise, and engage critically with the material rather than producing surface-level summaries.
Location preference
East Coast Time would help with setting up meetings. I am based in Washington, D.C.
Application question(s)
- Choose one First Amendment right or doctrine (from any clause, including implied rights). Identify one specific way that an AI technology or application (excluding generative AI) raises a question that existing doctrine does not clearly resolve. Explain what makes the question novel and what doctrinal tools a court would likely reach for in addressing it. (max 250 words)
- Provide a link to one writing sample that demonstrates your ability to read, synthesize, and reason about complex material. Indicate the context and intended audience. The sample can be as short as one paragraph. Do not submit more than five pages.
- This project requires sustained engagement with judicial opinions, law review articles, and constitutional scholarship. Describe your experience reading and working with these kinds of sources, or explain why you are prepared to develop that capacity over the course of the project. (max 150 words)
About the mentor
Michael Endrias is an AI Policy Fellow at the Institute for AI Policy and Strategy, placed at the Legal Advocates for Safe Science and Technology (LASST), where he supports frontier AI accountability litigation and legal research. He also supports the legislation team at the Future of Privacy Forum (FPF), where his work covers tracking chatbot regulation and constitutional constraints on AI legislation. Previously, he researched government surveillance technologies and law enforcement oversight at the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.). Michael is a J.D. candidate at Howard University School of Law, concentrating in privacy, surveillance, and internet law. His research at IAPS focuses on designing a permanent, technically competent congressional oversight body with investigative authority over frontier AI development, government AI programs, and adjacent high-risk technical domains.