In the latest battle in the continuing fight to obtain legal rights for sentient animals, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that a nonprofit organization seeking to protect the rights of elephants has no standing to sue because the elephants are not “persons” entitled to the habeas corpus protection sought on their behalf.  The Court has unanimously ruled that the state habeas corpus law applies only to human beings.

The Nonhuman Rights Project, a nonprofit seeking to secure legal rights for highly intelligent animals, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of five elderly elephants that live in a zoo, seeking their transfer to an elephant sanctuary.  Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou and Jambo are African elephants that live at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo.  The petition claimed they were being unlawfully confined and argued that they have a right to bodily liberty because they are autonomous and extraordinarily cognitively and socially complex beings.

The petition was supported by affidavits from seven animal biologists who argued that elephants share numerous cognitive capacities with humans, including self-awareness, empathy, awareness of death, intentional communication and ability to learn and categorize.  They argued that when deprived of exercise, a varied environment and social opportunities that the wild provides, they suffer from chronic frustration, boredom and stress, resulting in disabilities and often brain damage.

The Zoo disputed the factual allegations and moved to dismiss the class for lack of jurisdiction because the elephants did not have standing to sue.  A trial court agreed and the nonprofit appealed directly to the state Supreme Court.

Not a current Nonprofit Issues subscriber? Start an introductory subscription for 3 months of full access for just $17.95.

The Court recognized that the Writ of Habeas Corpus, going back to at least the thirteenth century in England, gave a right to petition for release of a person being unlawfully detained by governments, or, under Colorado common law, by anyone else.  The state law provides for redress when any “person” is illegally confined or restrained.  The statute defines person as “any individual, corporation, government or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, limited liability company, partnership, association, or other legal entity.”  The Court also cited a dictionary that said a person is defined as an individual human being.

The Court concluded that the statute did not intend to cover animals and that “including nonhuman animals in the definition of the term ‘person’ is the type of monumental change in the law that one would reasonably expect the General Assembly to make explicit.”

The Court said that “no Colorado court, nor any other court in any other jurisdiction in the United States has ever recognized the legal ‘personhood’ of any nonhuman species.”  It said that the trial court had correctly said that the interest in expanding legal rights for nonhuman animals is “best advanced through the legislative, not judicial, branch.”  (Nonhuman Rights Project v. Cheyenne Mountain Zoological Society, Supreme Ct., CO, No. 24SA21, 1/21/25.)

YOU NEED TO KNOW

The Court had available to it eight amicus briefs on behalf of zoos and aquariums, a group of law professors, some philosophers, foreign animal law experts, and others.  The result was not shocking.  Numerous other courts have denied legal rights to animals.  (See: Who Speaks for the Animals, Nonprofit Issues®, 7/16.)  This case is unlikely, however, to end the battle and its very interesting philosophical issues.