{"id":562,"date":"2023-12-07T16:48:39","date_gmt":"2023-12-07T20:48:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/?p=562"},"modified":"2023-12-07T16:48:39","modified_gmt":"2023-12-07T20:48:39","slug":"nonhuman-rights-project-loses-another-habeas-case-for-elephants","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/2023\/12\/07\/nonhuman-rights-project-loses-another-habeas-case-for-elephants\/","title":{"rendered":"Nonhuman Rights Project Loses Another Habeas Case for Elephants"},"content":{"rendered":"

As we have reported previously (here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>), 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.\u00a0 NhRP has used the common law and statutory writ of habeas corpus in an effort to \u201cliberate\u201d elephants and apes from various U.S. zoos and other facilities.\u00a0 None of these cases has succeeded.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Cheyenne Mountain Zoological Society, et al.<\/em>, No. 23CV31236 (Colo. Dist Ct., El Paso County Dec. 3, 2023).<\/p>\n

Like virtually every case before it, the Colorado court noted that \u201c[b]ecause the NHRP seeks an expansion of existing legal rights rather than enforcement of already-existing rights, its project is appropriately directed to the legislature, not to this Court.\u00a0 Existing law, which it is this Court\u2019s responsibility to interpret and apply, compels dismissal.\u201d\u00a0 Slip. op. at 9.<\/p>\n

The court held that neither the elephants nor NhRP had standing to sue and, even if they did, the petition did not make a prima facie showing that the elephants are unlawfully confined.<\/p>\n

The elephants had no standing because they are not \u201cpersons\u201d entitled to invoke the writ of habeas corpus under Colorado law.\u00a0 As the court explained:<\/p>\n

Our laws provide certain protections to animals through animal welfare statutes, but it is humans who determine the scope of those protections; and the laws of this country (again, for better or worse) have never treated animals as \u201cpersons\u201d with rights and responsibilities comparable to humans\u2019. \u00a0Had elephants, rather than humans, compacted together to form a society, the result, of course, would have been different.\u00a0 The result may also be different at some time in the future. \u00a0But wishing does not make it so, and this Court lacks the authority to create new rights out of thin air.\u00a0 In sum, because elephants fall outside the category of \u201cperson[s]\u201d who are entitled to relief under the habeas corpus statute, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case.\u00a0 [Slip op. at 19].<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

NhRP likewise had no standing as the elephants\u2019 \u201cnext friend.\u201d The court saw this issue as illustrated by the well-known Dr. Seuss character, the \u201cLorax<\/em> who proclaims, \u2018I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 Slip. op. at 20.\u00a0 Here, there was no evidence that NhRP actually spoke for the elephants at issue or had any relationship with them at all:<\/p>\n

[NhRP] cannot claim any significant relationship with these elephants, or indeed any relationship at all; the extent of its contact with Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou, and Jambo is the two hours that one of its experts, Bob Jacobs, spent at the Zoo (17 months ago) observing them, plus an additional, more recent short visit by an NHRP representative.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

This is not just a technicality. \u00a0There is a legitimate question in this case as to who properly speaks for the elephants (or, in other words, who gets to be the \u201celephant Lorax\u201d) \u2013 the NHRP, which represents that it wants to improve their lives by moving them to an accredited elephant sanctuary, or the Zoo, which has fed them, nurtured them, and taken care of them for many years. \u00a0It appears to be the Zoo, and not the NHRP, that has the more significant relationship with Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou, and Jambo.\u00a0 [Slip op. at 21-22].<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Even if the petitioner had standing, there was no evidence that the elephants were unlawfully confined and entitled to immediate release \u2013 even if the court were to credit everything that NhRP claimed about the conditions in which the elephants are being held.\u00a0 To the contrary, there was no dispute that the elephants were being held in compliance with existing legal standards:<\/p>\n

The crux of the issue is whether the NHRP\u2019s affidavits, taken as true, establish that the Zoo\u2019s elephants are being confined in violation of any cognizable legal standard. \u00a0They do not.\u00a0 The NHRP does not \u2013 and cannot \u2013 contend that the Zoo is holding these five elephants in violation of any existing law. \u00a0To the contrary, it is beyond dispute that the Zoo holds these elephants under a broad framework of laws that permit zoos to hold nonhuman animals for public display in exactly the manner the Zoo is doing.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Nor does the NHRP ask the Court to evaluate the elephants\u2019 specific living conditions against state or federal statutes or regulations, or even against applicable zoo industry standards. \u00a0Colorado has comparatively strong animal-welfare laws; the federal Animal Welfare Act sets out \u00a0standards intended to ensure that animals exhibited at zoos and other facilities \u201care provided humane care and treatment,\u201d 7 U.S.C. 2131; and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (the AZA) sets out basic standards for the care of elephants. \u00a0The NHRP, however, does not contend that the Zoo is in violation of any of these laws or standards.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

To the contrary, the NHRP\u2019s affidavits demonstrate that the Zoo, to all appearances, is in compliance with applicable zoo standards and regulations. \u00a0The quarrel that the NHRP\u2019s experts have is not with the Zoo\u2019s compliance with existing standards for American zoos, but with the standards themselves. \u00a0They take the position that \u201cthe enclosure space provided by any zoo is simply insufficient.\u201d \u00a0That position appears well-supported by the facts, but it is entirely unsupported by any enforceable legal standard.\u00a0 [Slip op. at 24].<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

So, NhRP goes down in flames again.\u00a0 (What is it that someone once said somewhere about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?)\u00a0 In any case, don\u2019t expect NhRP to go away anytime soon.\u00a0 Their IRS Form 990 tax return filed on October 15, 2022 for the year ended December 31, 2021 shows current revenue of $1,688,392 and net assets or fund balances of $3,164,422.\u00a0 That can pay for a fair amount of habeas petitions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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.\u00a0 NhRP has used the common law and statutory writ of habeas corpus in an effort to \u201cliberate\u201d … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Nonhuman Rights Project Loses Another Habeas Case for Elephants”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":317,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[22,49,495,21,17,5,18,402],"ppma_author":[697],"class_list":["post-562","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-african-elephant","tag-animal-law","tag-animal-personhood","tag-animal-rights","tag-habeas-corpus","tag-john-simpson","tag-nonhuman-rights","tag-nonhuman-rights-project"],"authors":[{"term_id":697,"user_id":317,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jmsimpson","display_name":"John M. Simpson","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/38\/2018\/06\/simpsonjohn-125x150.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/562","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/317"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=562"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/562\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=562"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=562"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=562"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=562"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}