In a significant legal decision, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that elephants cannot be granted human rights, rejecting a lawsuit filed by an animal rights group that accused a Colorado zoo of mistreating its elephants. The unanimous ruling (6-0) emphasized that legal protections such as habeas corpus apply only to humans, not animals, regardless of their intelligence or social complexity.
The Lawsuit Against Cheyenne Mountain Zoo
The Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP), an animal rights nonprofit, filed a lawsuit against Cheyenne Mountain Zoo in May 2024, claiming that five elderly African elephants—Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou, and Jambo—were being held in unlawful confinement and subjected to chronic stress, frustration, physical disabilities, and brain damage.
NhRP demanded that the elephants be transferred to a suitable elephant sanctuary, arguing that they have a right to bodily liberty due to their autonomy and cognitive abilities. The group cited habeas corpus, a constitutional principle that protects people from unlawful detention.
The Zoo’s Defense and Court’s Ruling
The Cheyenne Mountain Zoo strongly denied the allegations, stating that the elephants were receiving exceptional care. The zoo also argued that habeas corpus laws apply only to humans, and there was no legal basis for granting such rights to animals.
The Colorado Supreme Court agreed, ruling in favor of the zoo and affirming that Colorado’s habeas corpus statute applies exclusively to humans.
State Supreme Court Justice Maria Berkenkotter wrote in the ruling:
“Colorado’s habeas statute only applies to persons, and not to nonhuman animals, no matter how cognitively, psychologically, or socially sophisticated they may be.”
NhRP’s Response and Concerns Over Captivity
Despite the ruling, NhRP expressed disappointment, stating that the elephants were autonomous beings deprived of control over their lives.
The lower district court had also ruled in favor of the zoo but acknowledged that the elephants were likely living in poor conditions and small enclosures. However, the court maintained that NhRP had no legal standing under the habeas corpus law.
NhRP criticized the Supreme Court’s decision, stating:
“The Court missed an important chance to deepen our compassion for other beings and to promote the core values of our justice system, such as fairness, dignity, equality, and liberty.”
Zoo’s Response: Criticism of NhRP’s Legal Tactics
The Cheyenne Mountain Zoo pointed out that NhRP has previously sued several reputable zoos, including in New York, California, Colorado Springs, and Hawaii, without success.
The zoo accused NhRP of using court cases as a fundraising tactic, stating:
“The courts have proven now five times that their approach isn’t reasonable, but they continue to take it. Their real goal seems to be manipulating people into donating by publicizing sensational court cases.”
The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the legal position that habeas corpus protections apply only to humans, effectively shutting down attempts to grant legal personhood to elephants. While the court acknowledged concerns about zoo conditions, it upheld the argument that current laws do not extend such rights to animals.
This ruling is a setback for NhRP and other animal rights activists, but it highlights the ongoing debate over animal welfare, captivity, and legal rights. While elephants may have exceptional memory and intelligence, the legal system remains firm in distinguishing between human and animal rights.
