Elephants are not people, US court rules

J

Jurek7

Well-Known Member
15+ year member
The title just deserves a separate thread.

Elephants are not people, rules Colorado Supreme Court
Elephants are not people, US court rules
1 day ago
Maia Davies
BBC News

An animal rights group had filed to move five elephants from a Colorado zoo (file photo)

A bid to free five elephants from a Colorado zoo has been rejected after a court ruled elephants are not people.

An animal rights group argued Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou and Jambo were effectively imprisoned at the zoo, and had filed to have them moved to an elephant sanctuary.

It tried to bring a habeas corpus claim on behalf of the animals - a legal process which allows a person to challenge their detention in court.

The Colorado Supreme Court said the matter boiled down to "whether an elephant is a person" and therefore had the same liberty rights as a human - ultimately deciding that they did not.

It ruled 6-0 in favour of a previous district court decision that said the state's habeas corpus process "only applies to persons, and not to nonhuman animals".

This was true "no matter how cognitively, psychologically, or socially sophisticated they may be," State Supreme Court Justice Maria Berkenkotter added in her ruling.

While she said the five elderly African elephants were "majestic," the court ruled the claim could not be brought "because an elephant is not a person".

The Nonhuman Rights Project (NRP) petitioned for the elephants to be moved from Cheyenne Mountain Zoo to a "suitable elephant sanctuary" in 2023.

The group argued the animals had a right to freedom because they were emotionally complex and intelligent animals.

It claimed the elephants showed signs of "trauma, brain damage, and chronic stress" and that they were effectively "imprisoned" at the zoo.

Cheyenne Mountain Zoo rejected the claim, arguing the elephants had received remarkable care, and was supported by a district court.

After the Supreme Court ruling, Cheyenne Mountain Zoo called NRP's lawsuit "frivolous" and said it had "wasted" time and money on the case.

It accused the group of "abusing court systems to fundraise" and claimed its goal was "to manipulate people into donating to their cause by incessantly publicising sensational court cases with relentless calls for supporters to donate".

NRP said the decision "perpetuate[d] a clear injustice, stating that unless an individual is human they have no right to liberty".

"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," the group said in a statement.

An earlier bid by NRP to free an elephant named Happy from New York's Bronx Zoo was rejected after the court judged she was not legally a person.

I think we really need a shame prize for the worst animal-related charity in 2025. I hope the Cheyenne zoo did not lose much money on this silly lawsuit.
 
Sadly these idiots just won’t go away, it’s like a bit of pesticide working but these pests just keep coming back! Same situation happened to Happy and Billy, got shut off by the court, but they still continue to harass and demonize their zoo These brats need to freakin take the L and just focus on more serious stuff, but that is too much asking for these people.
 
Venting aside, grateful the court was able to n side with the zoo, hopefully these inspires/applies to other zoos dealing with the same struggles (I know wishful thinking)
 
Important to note that this is a state court ruling (Colorado as the link says) and not a federal "US" one, which is important because the decision only applies to the state of Colorado and not the wider United States as a whole, and means a similar case could be brought up in another state and this previous case would have absolutely no bearing on it. Similar to how this case went to court despite the New York courts having previously come to this same conclusion, for the most part.

There is a reason this group tries these cases on a state by state basis as (1) it allows them to hone their argument each time; (2) if they lose, the ruling does not apply to the entire country so they can try again elsewhere; and (3) this case would likely never succeed in the federal court system due to the current conservative leaning not only at the lower levels of the system, but on up to the Supreme Court. Trying this at the state level allows this group to cherry pick the most liberal states where this argument is likely to have the most success. Furthermore, this argument of "an animal being a human" would be too dangerously close to the mythical boogy man argument that conservatives in the US used for years to try to justify their disagreement with gay marriage. "If we allow gay marriage, where does it end? They'll let you marry a dolphin next." (I'm not joking, I have had this argument with people in my own family.) No conservative court at least will let this happen anytime soon and as we are seeing, it isn't working with liberal courts either.

EDITING to add that even if this did somehow succeed at the state court level, it would still need to get past the federal courts more than likely, as a state court ruling can be appealed in the federal courts if it is believed the state court is violating the US Constitution/laws.

Sorry for the civics lesson (former Social Studies teacher), but you'd be shocked how many US citizens don't actually understand that we have different court systems here.
 
Last edited:
NSU42 said:
Important to note that this is a state court ruling (Colorado as the link says) and not a federal "US" one, which is important because the decision only applies to the state of Colorado and not the wider United States as a whole, and means a similar case could be brought up in another state and this previous case would have absolutely no bearing on it. Similar to how this case went to court despite the New York courts having previously come to this same conclusion, for the most part.

There is a reason this group tries these cases on a state by state basis as (1) it allows them to hone their argument each time; (2) if they lose, the ruling does not apply to the entire country so they can try again elsewhere; and (3) this case would likely never succeed in the federal court system due to the current conservative leaning not only at the lower levels of the system, but on up to the Supreme Court. Trying this at the state level allows this group to cherry pick the most liberal states where this argument is likely to have the most success. Furthermore, this argument of "an animal being a human" would be too dangerously close to the mythical boogy man argument that conservatives in the US used for years to try to justify their disagreement with gay marriage. "If we allow gay marriage, where does it end? They'll let you marry a dolphin next." (I'm not joking, I have had this argument with people in my own family.) No conservative court at least will let this happen anytime soon and as we are seeing, it isn't working with liberal courts either.

EDITING to add that even if this did somehow succeed at the state court level, it would still need to get past the federal courts more than likely, as a state court ruling can be appealed in the federal courts if it is believed the state court is violating the US Constitution/laws.

Sorry for the civics lesson (former Social Studies teacher), but you'd be shocked how many US citizens don't actually understand that we have different court systems here.
Click to expand...
This needs to go the U.S. Supreme Court - which the plaintiffs don’t really want because then they WILL have precedent for national consensus .The question is : Are only Homo sapiens human beings today?
 
Don Majeski said:
This needs to go the U.S. Supreme Court - which the plaintiffs don’t really want because then they WILL have precedent for national consensus .The question is : Are only Homo sapiens human beings today?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, unless the plaintiffs sue in federal court, which as stated is probably not in their best interest and there is a reason they haven't tried that yet, it is highly unlikely to get there anytime soon. There are procedures to move court cases from the state court systems into the federal court system and the defendants could potentially attempt to do this, but that is unlikely to happen in these situations or be allowed by the courts because this argument can be seen as at least having some validity under almost any state constitution in addition to the U.S. Constitution.

Honestly, I highly doubt this group has any true belief that these lawsuits they bring will actually succeed. They are suing for other reasons, including:

(1) To bring attention to the matter and get people talking, because a case such as this will inevitably make some headlines.

(2) In the eyes of the public this brings a sense of legitimacy to their "cause" no matter how phony it actually is. "Oh, there were court cases and arguments actually made about this? They must have some good and valid arguments." The majority of the public will stop there and not look into it any further to actually see if that is actually true. This was the same strategy used by Republicans with there "election fraud" claims after the 2020 election. It doesn't matter that almost all of those cases were thrown out as people just see there was a "case." (As usual when I make statements like this, not trying to start a political argument here. I am just bringing up another example of trying use the courts to legitimize a cause.)

(3) This goes along with numbers 1 & 2, but by there even being a lawsuit and then a court case about this it creates the idea that "Hmm, maybe the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo is mistreating their elephants and that must not be a very good zoo..." As again, most people aren't going to look into this past the headline unless they have some other interest in the matter (ie home zoo, favorite zoo, elephant lover, etc).

(4) Their ultimate goal is likely to make it even more unattractive to be a holder of elephants in the United States. Elephants are already one of the most expensive zoo animals to maintain because of the large amount of food they consume, exhibit size and needs, etc., that by further tying up a zoo's resources in court and making them commit even more funds to them you are further driving up the cost of keeping them. Other zoos may look at this and decide the risks out weigh the benefits to keeping elephants, which in the end may help this organization achieve their goals anyways.
 
Last edited:
NSU42 said:
Unfortunately, unless the plaintiffs sue in federal court, which as stated is probably not in their best interest and there is a reason they haven't tried that yet, it is highly unlikely to get there anytime soon. There are procedures to move court cases from the state court systems into the federal court system and the defendants could potentially attempt to do this, but that is unlikely to happen in these situations or be allowed by the courts because this argument can be seen as at least having some validity under almost any state constitution in addition to the U.S. Constitution.

Honestly, I highly doubt this group has any true belief that these lawsuits they bring will actually succeed. They are suing for other reasons, including:

(1) To bring attention to the matter and get people talking, because a case such as this will inevitably make some headlines.

(2) In the eyes of the public this brings a sense of legitimacy to their "cause" no matter how phony it actually is. "Oh, there were court cases and arguments actually made about this? They must have some good and valid arguments." The majority of the public will stop there and not look into it any further to actually see if that is actually true. This was the same strategy used by Republicans with there "election fraud" claims after the 2020 election. It doesn't matter that almost all of those cases were thrown out as people just see there was a "case." (As usual when I make statements like this, not trying to start a political argument here. I am just bringing up another example of trying use the courts to legitimize a cause.)

(3) This goes along with numbers 1 & 2, but by there even being a lawsuit and then a court case about this it creates the idea that "Hmm, maybe the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo is mistreating their elephants and that must not be a very good zoo..." As again, most people aren't going to look into this past the headline unless they have some other interest in the matter (ie home zoo, favorite zoo, elephant lover, etc).

(4) Their ultimate goal is likely to make it even more unattractive to be a holder of elephants in the United States. Elephants are already one of the most expensive zoo animals to maintain because of the large amount of food they consume, exhibit size and needs, etc., that by further tying up a zoo's resources in court and making them commit even more funds to them you are further driving up the cost of keeping them. Other zoos may look at this and decide the risks out weigh the benefits to keeping elephants, which in the end may help this organization achieve their goals anyways.
Click to expand...
A war of attrition where logic has no place and emotional hysteria are the weapons of choice .
It is difficult for these fanatics to lose because they have nothing TO lose.
And they don’t have to rely on any facts to back up their allegations
 
Actually, the article says that the activists are not living in a cloud cuckoo land, but made business out of collecting funds for helping animals which do not need help. Too many people still automatically believe things on the internet, and if they read 'help the elephants' they don't check whether these elephants really need help.

That elephants don't have human rights is obvious. It was already discussed that it is a logical self-contradiction which would create countless legal paradoxes and harm both elephants and people. Did the elephants give consent to represent them to the zoo or the activists?

One solution is pre-emptive prevention. Reaching out to the public who would potentially give funds, and to lawyers, telling that the organization did not provide any tangible help for the elephants.

Another solution is exposing the real intent, by challenging such organizations to do something for their stated goals (helping animals) but against their suspected goals (helping themselves with money). For example, a zoo might challenge such organizations to pay money to support elephants in national parks instead, which need anti-poaching patrols to keep elephants living in their freedom... A real activist would jump at the opportunity. If one sees anger and hears some ideological excuses, one (and the public) knows what is really going on.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top