Colorado Supreme Court Concludes (Unsurprisingly) That Elephants Aren’t Persons

On January 21, 2025, the Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed a lower court ruling that elephants maintained in a zoo were not properly the subject of a habeas corpus petition pursued by the animal rights group, Nonhuman Rights Project (NRP). Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Cheyenne Mountain Zoological Society, No. 24SA21 (Colo. Jan. 21, 2025). As the court observed, “We are not alone in rejecting NRP’s attempt to extend the great writ to nonhuman animals. . . . Every one of [NRP’s] petitions for writ of habeas corpus has been denied for the same or very similar reasons.” Slip op. at 16.

NRP filed the writ arguing that five elderly African elephants (Loxodonta africana) located at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo (Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou and Jambo) were “unlawfully confined” and should be relocated to an elephant sanctuary. Petitioner argued that elephants held in a zoo are prone to suffer from “chronic frustration, boredom, and stress, resulting over time in physical disabilities, psychological disorders, and, often, brain damage.” Slip. op. at 6. The zoo “vigorously disputed the factual allegations in the Petition, pushing back against the suggestion that the elephants were receiving anything short of remarkable care.” Id.

The Supreme Court concluded that habeas relief was unavailable here because the Colorado habeas statute only applies to “persons,” and “persons” means human beings:

Colorado’s habeas corpus statute does not define the term “person.” It is, however, defined by section 2-4-401, C.R.S. (2024), which contains definitions that “apply to every statute, unless the context otherwise requires.” Under section 2-4-401(8), “‘Person’ means any individual, corporation, government or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, limited liability company, partnership, association, or other legal entity.” Looking to the dictionary, the term “person” is defined as an individual human being. See Person, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (“[a] human being”); Person, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person [https://perma.cc/6AX5-9MCH] (“human, individual”).


Given the statutory definition of the term “person” and the plain and ordinary meaning of the term found in the dictionary, we conclude that the General Assembly’s choice of the word “person” demonstrates its intent to limit the reach of section 13-45-102 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. That is, “[i]f [the General
Assembly] intended to take the extraordinary step of authorizing animals as well as people . . . to sue, they could, and should, have said so plainly.” [Slip op. at 14-15 (citation omitted).]

The court likewise was not persuaded that the common law writ of habeas corpus was available: “[N]othing in the common law supports NRP’s position, which rests primarily on a concurring opinion and two dissenting opinions in its unsuccessful efforts to extend the writ of habeas corpus to nonhuman animals.” Slip op. at 16. This was the case notwithstanding NRP’s argument that elephants are “autonomous:” “Habeas protections flow from the status of being a person, not from a being’s ability to pass some type of autonomous capacity test.” Id. at 18.

It also was significant that NRP was not seeking to actually “liberate” the elephants but, instead, to move them to another form of confinement in a sanctuary: “The fact that NRP merely seeks the transfer of the elephants from one form of confinement to another is yet another reason that habeas relief is not appropriate here.” Slip op. at 19.

As the court summed it up:

Simply put, no Colorado court, nor any other court in any other jurisdiction in the United States has ever recognized the legal “personhood” of any nonhuman species. [Slip op. at 17.]

NRP has, for years, sought to push its animal rights agenda by burdening zoos and other exhibitors with habeas petitions seeking to move elephants to sanctuaries on the theory that holding such an animal in a zoological setting is deleterious to the animal’s welfare. (We have written about NRP’s actions several times, for example here.) Such assertions of poor welfare generally are baseless. For example, litigation involving the Ringling Bros. Circus elephants demonstrated that they generally lived longer than their wild counterparts. In fact, Ringling had one circus elephant who lived well into her mid-70’s. One would think that these habeas petitions would, at some point, be found by the courts to be frivolous.

Turns Out That DOGE Already Existed – Just With a Different Name

At the federal level, stakeholders in the animal space often encounter regulators such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service or the Department of Interior’s Fish & Wildlife Service.  Not uncommonly, federal regulation is heavy-handed.  Thus, the regulated have been keenly interested in the much discussed Department of Government Efficiency or “DOGE” that President Trump touted during the presidential campaign.  As originally described, DOGE – an advisory body to be headed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy – would cut regulations and headcounts within the federal government.

Interestingly enough, however, when it came time to actually creating DOGE, President Trump’s January 20, 2025 Executive Order simply renamed and reorganized the duties of an existing federal agency – the United States Digital Service (“USDS”).  USDS has been around for ten years.  It was created by President Obama in 2014.  The USDS website describes the agency’s mission as follows:

USDS brings together interdisciplinary teams of top technologists – including engineers, data scientists, designers, user researchers, product managers, and procurement experts – who collaborate closely with agency experts to tackle important problems.  This collaborative approach prioritizes human-centered engineering and design, focusing on iterative improvements to create user-friendly, reliable, and seamless digital services.

USDS states that it puts together teams of individuals with the relevant expertise who, “with tours of service lasting no more than four years . . . bring[] fresh perspectives on technology and delivery to the government.”  Among USDS’s listed achievements are improved user and customer digital experiences for the Veterans Administration, Social Security Administration, Internal Revenue Service and the Centers for Disease Control.

President Trump’s January 20, 2025 Executive Order (EO) “establishes the Department of Government Efficiency to implement the President’s DOGE agenda by modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.”  The EO renames USDS as the United States DOGE Service.  The EO requires each federal agency head to establish a “DOGE Team” within their respective agencies which will advise the agency head on “implementing the President’s DOGE Agenda.”  According to section 4(a) of the EO,

The USDS Administrator shall commence a Software Modernization Initiative to improve the quality and efficiency of government-wide software, network infrastructure, and information technology (IT) systems.  Among other things, the USDS Administrator shall work with Agency Heads to promote inter-operability between agency networks and systems, ensure data integrity, and facilitate responsible data collection and synchronization.

So, what was described originally as an initiative that would basically slash and burn through the federal bureaucratic state, appears, at least in its original formulation, to be largely a plan to overall federal agencies’ information technology capabilities to maximize efficiency.  Whether the United States DOGE Service expands its role beyond technological improvement remains to be seen.

As reported by several media outlets, within 15 minutes of President Trump’s oath of office and before the EO was even signed, several groups filed suit claiming that DOGE is an unlawful advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.  Whether those litigants revise their claims in light of the actual language of the EO is another thing that remains to be seen. 

D.C. Circuit Bounces Animal Rights Case on Standing Grounds

Animal rights groups often pursue consumer-type cases against food producers and argue that packaging claims and images supposedly mislead buyers into thinking that the animals turned into food were humanely raised.  The goal really isn’t transparency.  The goal is to use the cost of defending such claims to end the eating of animals as food.  On August 9, 2024, the D.C. Circuit knocked out such a case on standing grounds.  Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc., v. Vilsack, No. 23-5009 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 9, 2024). Continue reading “D.C. Circuit Bounces Animal Rights Case on Standing Grounds”

Supreme Court Guts USDA’s Power to Assess Civil Penalties Under the Animal Welfare Act

Somewhat overshadowed by Chevron’s spectacular crash and burn last week was the Supreme Court’s decision the day before in SEC v. Jarkesy, No. 22-859 (U.S. June 27, 2024), holding that the SEC’s assessment of civil penalties in an administrative proceeding is unconstitutional because it deprives the party assessed of its Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury.  This result has particular significance for those regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Continue reading “Supreme Court Guts USDA’s Power to Assess Civil Penalties Under the Animal Welfare Act”

Fourth Circuit Sends Family Dog Shooting Case to Trial

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently reversed a summary judgment in favor of a police officer who had been sued for an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment arising out of an incident that had resulted in the shooting death of a pet dog.  According to the appellate court, the conflicting accounts of what happened could only be resolved by a jury.  Ray v. Roane, No. 22-2120 (4th Cir. Feb. 22, 2024). Continue reading “Fourth Circuit Sends Family Dog Shooting Case to Trial”

PETA’s Animal “Shelter” Continues as a Leader in Animal Death

Animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) recently posted the “news” that it had “newly obtained public records” showing that certain research universities had euthanized laboratory animals during the COVID-19 pandemic and that PETA had complained about this to the National Institutes of Health.  In its zeal to attack the use of animals in medical research, PETA described this as a “mass killing spree.”  What this ignores, however, as reported by The Chronicle of Higher Education back in 2020 when all this happened, is that universities made these difficult decisions because they had no choice.  Social distancing requirements that forced animal care personnel to stay out of the labs, precluded the delivery of proper animal care.  It was not humane to allow the animals to go without food, water and other husbandry.  But what we thought was particularly interesting is PETA’s use of the rhetoric “mass killing spree” in light of what goes on in its own facility in Norfolk, Virginia. Continue reading “PETA’s Animal “Shelter” Continues as a Leader in Animal Death”

Eighth Circuit Animal Rights “Ag Gag Law” Challenge Fail – Part II

Yesterday, we reported on a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that rejected a challenge by animal rights activists to a so-called “ag gag law” in Iowa.  In a parallel decision the same day, the court issued another opinion rejecting a First Amendment challenge by animal rights groups to another aspect of the same law.  Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds, No. 22-3464 (8th Cir. Jan. 8, 2024). Continue reading “Eighth Circuit Animal Rights “Ag Gag Law” Challenge Fail – Part II”

Animal Rights Challenge to Iowa “Ag Gag Law” Fails in Eighth Circuit

On January 8, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rejected a constitutional challenge brought by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and other groups to an Iowa statute that prohibits “agricultural facility fraud.”  Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds, No. 22-1830 (8th Cir. Jan. 8, 2024).  Statutes like this are often termed “ag gag laws” by their opponents.  The district court had declared that the law violates the First Amendment, but the court of appeals reversed. Continue reading “Animal Rights Challenge to Iowa “Ag Gag Law” Fails in Eighth Circuit”

Nonhuman Rights Project Loses Another Habeas Case for Elephants

As we have reported previously (here, here, here, here), an animal rights group called the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) has a history of filing fruitless cases to establish that animals should have the same basic rights as people.  NhRP has used the common law and statutory writ of habeas corpus in an effort to “liberate” elephants and apes from various U.S. zoos and other facilities.  None of these cases has succeeded.  The most recent failure occurred this month in Colorado where a state court judge denied a habeas writ with respect to five African elephants residing at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoological Society.  Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Cheyenne Mountain Zoological Society, et al., No. 23CV31236 (Colo. Dist Ct., El Paso County Dec. 3, 2023). Continue reading “Nonhuman Rights Project Loses Another Habeas Case for Elephants”

© 2009-2025 Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress