On October 24th, the Colorado Supreme Court heard arguments by the Nonhuman Rights Project centered on whether the elephants confined at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo have the right to liberty and must be released to an elephant sanctuary. Widely covered by local and national media, this hearing marked the first time the Colorado Supreme Court, or any state high court in the Western US, has considered whether a nonhuman being is entitled to a legal right and can invoke the protections of habeas corpus, a revered centuries-old safeguard of liberty.
You can watch the hearing here on the Court’s website (scroll down to CASE LOCATOR: Find a Case or Event and enter 24SA21 under Case Number or Description). In the coming weeks, the NhRP will hold a Zoom webinar to discuss the hearing and answer questions. Stay tuned for details!
As we argued, elephants shouldn’t be deprived of justice simply because they aren’t human. It’s the role of the courts to protect liberty, and we thank the Colorado Supreme Court for choosing to examine the injustice of the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo elephants’ lives. We hope that in their decision the judges will take the opportunity to deepen our compassion and respect for other beings by affirming that the time-honored writ of habeas corpus can protect the autonomy of elephants, too.
What happened at our Colorado elephant rights hearing
The justices asked probing, pointed questions of both sides during the hour-long hearing, which took place in Boulder at the University of Colorado Law School and was observed by approximately 100 law students and faculty as part of the Courts in the Community program. Members of the public were also in attendance in the packed courtroom.
The justices’ questions for the NhRP focused on the idea of a “limiting principle”–in other words, where the line should be drawn as to which nonhuman animals are entitled to invoke the protections of habeas corpus. The Court also appeared interested in understanding the precedential ramifications of any decision they would write; why the arguments for the elephants’ right to bodily liberty aren’t more appropriate for the legislature; and whether the NhRP’s requested relief under habeas corpus–the release of the elephants’ from the zoo to an elephant sanctuary–made sense given the elephants would not be completely free in the latter environment.
NhRP attorney Jake Davis responded by arguing that questions regarding other nonhuman animals are questions for another day, as this case is only about the injustice of the five elephants unjustly confined at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo. He explained that the scientific evidence shows that elephants are autonomous, and it is the Court’s duty under the common law (judge-made law that’s meant to incrementally evolve along with scientific discovery and societal norms) to protect autonomy. And while an elephant sanctuary is a form of captivity, in such an environment, the elephants would have orders of magnitude more space and the ability to maximize their autonomy given that they can no longer be released back to their natural habitats.
The justices’ questions for the attorney representing the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo, John W. Suthers, included whether the Colorado Supreme Court, as the highest court in the state, has the authority to evolve the common law. In what the NhRP considered a surprising concession, Suthers said the Court did have that authority, though the Court shouldn’t exercise it in this case. Suthers also argued the elephants’ confinement could not be illegal because the NhRP did not allege the zoo violated any animal welfare statute.
Background on the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo elephants’ case
Drawing on fundamental principles of justice, the science of elephant cognition and behavior, and centuries of case law, the NhRP is asking the Colorado Supreme Court to recognize that Jambo, LouLou, Lucky, Missy, and Kimba are entitled to challenge their unjust confinement through the writ of habeas corpus and to order the lower court to hold a hearing on the merits of the elephants’ case. In December of 2023, the lower court had dismissed the NhRP’s petition on the elephants’ behalf simply because they aren’t human.
Jambo, Kimba, LouLou, Lucky, and Missy were born in the wild in Africa, taken from their herds when they were babies, and imported to the US in the 1970s and 1980s. The NhRP’s case is supported by experts in elephant cognition and behavior, habeas corpus, philosophy, civil rights, and animal law in the form of expert declarations and amicus briefs.
Among the elephant experts who have submitted expert declarations in support of the elephants’ right to liberty and release to a sanctuary is Dr. Bob Jacobs, a professor emeritus at Colorado College who has studied the neurological harm of zoo captivity on elephants. He has personally observed the CMZ elephants engaging in behavior indicative of chronic distress and trauma, including rocking, swaying, and head bobbing. Elephants living freely in their natural habitats have never been observed exhibiting such behaviors. “From a neural perspective,” Dr. Jacobs writes in his declaration, “imprisoning large mammals and putting them on display is undeniably cruel.”
The biggest takeaway from the hearing right now
Unsurprisingly (given the centuries that nonhuman animals have been “things” with no rights), the justices asked tough questions, but so did we. And it is now for the Court to decide whether to maintain an unjust status quo or affirm and deepen our compassion and respect for the freedom of other beings. Regardless of what happens next, the NhRP is optimistic about the hearing and the progress it represents.
At its core, this case is about something very simple: allowing these elephants to be elephants again, at least as much as is humanly possible given they can no longer be released to the natural habitats they were taken from. It’s also much bigger than that. This hearing shows that calls for justice for nonhuman animals are finally being heard, discussed, and considered. No matter what happens next, this hearing is a watershed moment for nonhuman animals and the nonhuman animal rights movement. We look forward to seeing how the court rules.
A decision is expected in the coming months.
Our litigation to #FreeTheCMZElephants is our first lawsuit in Colorado. Learn more about their case on their client page. For further reading, see: What’s wrong with the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo elephant exhibit