Elephants don't have standing to sue to leave the zoo, top Colorado court rules
In this 1998 photo, a child feeds one of the elephants at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo in Colorado as part of the zoo's Summer Safari Camp. (Photo By Lyn Alweis/The Denver Post via Getty Images)
Colorado’s highest court on Tuesday ruled that five elderly elephants don’t have legal standing to sue to leave a local zoo because they’re not human.
An animal rights group had sought to have the African elephants, Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou and Jambo, freed from Cheyenne Mountain Zoo and moved to an elephant sanctuary, citing a legal process known as “habeas corpus” that allows individuals in custody to challenge their detention or incarceration in court.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled 6-0 in favor of an earlier district court decision, saying that from a legal standpoint, the question “boils down to whether an elephant is a person.”
“It bears noting that the narrow legal question before this court does not turn on our regard for these majestic animals generally or these five elephants specifically,” State Supreme Court Justice Maria Berkenkotter wrote in her ruling. But, she added, “because an elephant is not a person, the elephants here do not have standing to bring a habeas corpus claim” under Colorado law.
The Nonhuman Rights Project, a U.S.-based animal advocacy organization, had submitted affidavits from seven animal biologists in support of its case. They explained that elephants share numerous cognitive capacities with humans—including self-awareness, empathy, and the ability to learn and communicate. In the wild, elephants travel for many miles each day in complex social groups, the experts said.
Christopher Berry, the executive director for the Nonhuman Rights Project, described the Supreme Court’s judgment as “alarming,” saying that it diminishes the court’s power to “protect the right to liberty when it is violated.”
“Regardless of today’s result, support for recognizing legal rights for animals continues to grow,” Berry said in an email Tuesday. He said the rights group is exploring ways to proceed in the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo case.
In a statement, Cheyenne Mountain Zoo described the lawsuit as “frivolous,” noting that the rights group has attempted and lost similar suits against “several other reputable zoos.”
“While we’re happy with this outcome, we are disappointed that it ever came to this,” the zoo said. “For the past 19 months, we’ve been subjected to their misrepresented attacks, and we’ve wasted valuable time and money responding to them in courts and in the court of public opinion.”
A New York court reached a similar decision over an Asian elephant at the Bronx Zoo named Happy in 2022, in another case brought by the animal rights group. Two New York judges expressed a dissenting opinion in support of Happy’s “right to liberty,” Berry said.
“As we’ve seen in other movements, early losses are to be expected,” Berry said. “While courts are often influenced by decisions in other states, every state has its own independent body of law.”
The group has two other cases pending on appeal, Berry said: One in Michigan on behalf of chimpanzees at a roadside zoo, and one in Hawaii on behalf of two elephants at a zoo.
Wildlife advocates have long argued that keeping animals in captivity can cause suffering, even in facilities that aim to teach visitors about ecology and daily care.
A woman was killed recently by an elephant at a venue in Thailand advertised as an ethical sanctuary, shining a light on the moral issues and potential dangers surrounding tours that involve the animals. In Australia last year, a koala sanctuary stopped offering cuddles with the furry animals, amid growing concerns about the risks of “selfie-style” tourist encounters to animal welfare.
“A big part of our challenge is simply overcoming the inertia of the status quo—and that requires time and education,” Berry said. “As we overcome that inertia, more and more judges will find the motivation and courage to rule in our favor.”
See also:
Colorado Supreme Court considers whether habeas petition can free zoo elephants
Happy the elephant isn’t a person entitled to freedom from detention, top state court rules
A horse is a horse—of course? Oregon Supreme Court denies plaintiff horse case review
Creatures Great and Small: 9 court rulings that shaped the Endangered Species Act
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
