
Elephants denied ‘personhood’ must sue to leave Colorado zoo
Monique Merrill
(CN) — Five elderly African elephants will be staying put in a Colorado zoo after the state Supreme Court denied an animal advocacy group’s effort to expand the definition of “persons” to include elephants under the state’s unlawful imprisonment review process on Tuesday.
In a 21-page opinion, the full Colorado Supreme Court determined that the state’s habeas corpus statute, which grants relief to civil detainees, applies only to humans and not other creatures, “no matter how cognitively, psychologically, or socially sophisticated they may be.”
Acknowledging that its decision is narrowly tailored to a question of law, and not the court’s “regard for these majestic animals generally or these five elephants specifically,” Justice Maria Berkenkotter wrote for the court that “because an elephant is not a person, the elephants here do not have standing to bring a habeas corpus claim.”
The Nonhuman Rights Project, a nonprofit seeking legal rights for intelligent animals, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 2023 on behalf of five elephants — Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou and Jambo — living at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo in Colorado Springs in an attempt to move the elephants to a sanctuary.
The animal advocacy group argued that the elephants were illegally confined at the zoo and that the animals have a right to bodily liberty because they are autonomous and highly intelligent.
The zoo moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the elephants lacked standing to seek relief since the state’s habeas statute doesn’t extend to animals. The zoo also pushed back on the animal advocacy group’s assertions that the elephants weren’t being properly cared for.
The El Paso County District Court dismissed the petition, noting that no courts had extended habeas corpus rights to animals and the habeas law authorizes relief for “any person” rather than animals and the elephants thus lacked standing.
Even if the elephants had standing to bring the petition, the lower court concluded the animal advocacy group had not proved the elephants were being confined in violation of any legal standard.
The animal advocacy group then continued its challenge and appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court.
Delving into the background of habeas corpus writs, Berkenkotter noted it has “profound historical importance as a means to challenge various forms of unjust detention.” But the question as to whether nonhumans can invoke such challenges lacks the same historical precedent.
The justices found that while habeas corpus petitions are typically filed by those in criminal custody of the state, the statute allows for anyone being unlawfully detained to file a petition and turned to the language used within the text.
“Colorado’s habeas corpus statute does not define the term ‘person,’” Berkenkotter wrote for the court.
While the term is not defined in that statute, it is defined elsewhere as an individual, corporation, estate, government or legal entity. That, coupled with the common definition of the word, indicated to the high court that state legislators intended to limit the habeas statute to human beings.
“Our conclusion is further bolstered by the fact 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,” Berkenkotter wrote.
The animal advocacy group argued that the court should consider common law writ of habeas corpus, which provides broader relief than the state statute. The court rejected that argument as well, finding that nothing in the common law supported the group’s position, which it noted is primarily rooted in a concurring opinion and two dissenting opinions from the group’s other efforts to extend relief to animals.
“Simply put, 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,” Berkenkotter wrote.
Next, the court rejected the group’s suggestion that habeas corpus relief is based on a being’s autonomous capacity.
“Habeas protections flow from the status of being a person, not from a being’s ability to pass some type of autonomous capacity test,” Berkenkotter wrote.
Lastly, the court noted that the group was not asking for the elephants to be released but rather relocated to a sanctuary.
“The fact that [Nonhuman Rights Project] merely seeks the transfer of the elephants from one form of confinement to another is yet another reason that habeas relief is not appropriate here,” Berkenkotter wrote.
The Supreme Court suggested the group look to the legislative branch to advance its efforts to expand animal legal rights.
In a statement, the Nonhuman Rights Project said the Supreme Court’s opinion perpetuated a clear injustice.
“Future courts will reject this notion, as judges in the United States and around the world have already begun to do,” the group wrote. “As with other social justice movements, early losses are expected as we challenge an entrenched status quo that has allowed Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou, and Jambo to be relegated to a lifetime of mental and physical suffering.”
Justin Marceau, animal law professor and director of the Animal Activist Legal Defense Project, said in a statement that the court neglected a key chance to raise the law in line with scientific understanding about animals. The Animal Activist Legal Defense Project provided an amicus brief in support of the petition.
“In affirming a ruling that all non-human animals are categorically excluded from habeas corpus, the court has arbitrarily prohibited them from exercising their rights to be free of unlawful captivity, simply because of who they are,” Marceau said. “History will look upon this ruling as a grave injustice.”