In an unprecedented legal twist, the Colorado Supreme Court is entertaining a case that could revolutionize the way we view animal rights. At the heart of this case are five elephants—Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou, and Jambo—living at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo. These African-born elephants could soon be arguing for their own freedom if the justices side with the NonHuman Rights Project (NhRP) and decide to declare these pachyderms “persons” under Colorado law. Imagine that: a herd of elephants striding out of court with a writ of habeas corpus clutched in their trunks.
The case, no less peculiar for its legal implications, raises a fundamental question: can animals, particularly highly intelligent and social ones, possess rights akin to humans? It’s a question that’s already been addressed in New York, where courts determined that an elephant could indeed be very clever, perhaps even deserving of empathy—but definitely not a “person.” Colorado’s justices now have the honor of wrestling with this same existential quandary.
Unpacking Habeas Corpus: For Humans, or Now for Elephants?
The NonHuman Rights Project, represented by attorney Jake Davis, argues that habeas corpus—a legal process traditionally used by prisoners to dispute unlawful detention—should apply to animals like elephants. Why? According to NhRP, these elephants are displaying signs of psychological trauma because their spacious zoo enclosures just don’t cut it compared to the vast African wilderness they’re biologically wired to roam.
The zoo, on the other hand, finds the idea absurd, countering that moving these elephants, especially in their golden years, would be tantamount to cruelty. According to zoo officials, it would be “unnecessary stress” for animals who’ve grown accustomed to their current living conditions. Apparently, Missy and friends wouldn’t thrive in a natural environment or a sanctuary where their every need isn’t meticulously catered to.
NhRP’s stance is rooted in the belief that intelligent animals should be spared the confines of captivity. But where do we draw the line? This conundrum was certainly not lost on Justice Melissa Hart, who inquired if this ruling could mean a similar fate for domestic pets. Imagine your house cat presenting its case to a court of law, complete with a PowerPoint on the subpar quality of canned food it’s been subjected to.
The Zoo’s Stance: “You Can’t Teach an Old Elephant New Tricks”
The Cheyenne Mountain Zoo’s legal counsel paints a less idyllic picture of sanctuary life, arguing that these elephants are already well settled into their current lives. According to the zoo, transferring Missy, Kimba, and their companions to an elephant sanctuary would be cruel at their age, possibly subjecting them to unfamiliar environments and unwanted social interactions with new herds. After all, we wouldn’t want our beloved elephants subjected to the unpredictability of, well, other elephants.
A Slippery Legal Slope: Emancipating Pets?
The zoo’s attorney, John Suthers, finds the NhRP’s proposal concerning, pointing out that habeas corpus has historically been reserved for humans. Sure, the court extended habeas corpus to enslaved people and women trapped in abusive relationships. But these were all extensions made to human beings, as Suthers quickly reminds the justices. Should elephants join the club, who’s next?
The NhRP insists that elephants possess enough intelligence to be recognized as individuals under the law. They argue that keeping these social, highly intelligent animals in captivity when they could theoretically roam free is inhumane. Yet, as Chief Justice Monica Marquez astutely noted, wouldn’t lobbying for new animal rights legislation or even a ballot initiative be a more straightforward route? Then again, getting elephants to circulate petitions might be logistically challenging.
A Decision that Could Change Animal Rights Law
Whatever ruling the Colorado Supreme Court hands down, it’s sure to make waves. Recognizing elephants as legal “persons” would have far-reaching consequences, sparking new debates over the rights of other intelligent animals, from apes to whales. It might even pave the way for future litigation on behalf of animals in similar captive situations. Just think—today it’s elephants, and tomorrow, perhaps, your pet goldfish could be lobbying for a bigger tank.
