Nonhuman Rights Project Sues Utah Over Unconstitutional Anti-Rights Law

In 2024, the Utah legislature passed a bill, H.B. 249, that categorically strips the authority of courts to recognize the legal rights or duties of certain nonhuman entities. On January 29th, the NhRP filed a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of this law. H.B. 249 “is nothing more than a legislative attempt to mandate legal conclusions, which violates the Constitution and is antithetical to how the common law evolves,” the NhRP writes in our complaint. 

Nonhuman entities impacted by the law include nonhuman animals, land, bodies of water, and artificial intelligence. Corporations aren’t specifically listed in the statute. According to the author, the purpose of the law was to “define personhood as a human being.”

In the words of our Executive Director Christopher Berry, “This law takes away the power of the judiciary in Utah to interpret the law. It sets a dangerous and unconstitutional precedent that the legislature can take away the ability of courts to exercise independent judgment to protect legal rights, including civil liberties. In addition to being unconstitutional, H.B. 249 enshrines into law a common misunderstanding that legal persons must have the same rights as a human.”

What is a legal person?

A legal person is an entity that has at least one legal right or one legal duty. The term isn’t synonymous with being human, and it doesn’t require having all the same rights or duties a human has. For example, corporations aren’t human but they’re considered legal persons for some purposes. And pets are treated like legal persons under Utah’s pet trust statute for the limited purpose of ensuring that money set aside for their care is actually used for their care.

What we’re asking for

We’re asking Utah’s Third Judicial District Court in Salt Lake County to strike down the law because it violates constitutional separation of powers. The State of Utah, the Utah Attorney General, and the Utah Governor are named as defendants in the complaint. 

An attempt to stop legal progress

The author of H.B. 249 cited the progress made by the NhRP in Happy the elephant’s case in New York as one reason for the bill’s introduction. The NhRP’s case on behalf of Happy marked the first time a US state high court considered whether a nonhuman animal has a legal right. Two judges on that court wrote historic dissents in support of Happy’s right to liberty under the common law, which is judge-made law that’s meant to evolve along with societal norms.  

H.B. 249 is the kind of legislation that seeks in vain to shut down debate and prevent legal change. We won’t let it. We’ll share updates on this case as soon as we have them. Thank you!