ANIMAL RIGHTS WATCH
News, Information, and Knowledge Resources

‘Persona Non Grata’: Colorado supreme court denies ‘personhood’ claim for release of zoo elephants

Justice Maria Berkenkotter wrote for the Supreme Court that: 'Because an elephant is not a person, the elephants in the Colorado zoo do not have standing to bring a 'habeas corpus' claim. 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 state legislature to make explicit'. In a statement, the Nonhuman Rights Project said: 'the Supreme Court’s opinion perpetuated a clear injustice that has allowed Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou, and Jambo to be relegated to a lifetime of mental and physical suffering.'

MONIQUE MERRILL: 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…

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”… “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 Supreme Court suggested the group look to the legislative branch to advance its efforts to expand animal legal rights…

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…

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.” SOURCE…

RELATED VIDEOS:

You might also like