In 2024, the Utah legislature passed a bill, H.B. 249, that categorically strips the authority of courts to recognize the legal rights of certain nonhuman entities. On January 29, 2025, the NhRP filed a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of this law. As we wrote in our Complaint, 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.”
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.”
This lawsuit is now working its way through Utah’s courts. On March 21st, the State of Utah filed a motion asking Utah’s Third Judicial District Court in Salt Lake City to dismiss our case. On April 4th, we filed an Opposition motion in response, asking the Court to deny the State’s motion to dismiss and allow the case to proceed. Our Opposition motion maintains that despite the State’s arguments, 1) we have standing to sue 2) H.B. 249 is facially unconstitutional (meaning there’s nothing about its language that passes a constitutional analysis), and 3) we’re not asking the court to rule on the question of nonhuman rights through this lawsuit.
As I said at the time we filed this lawsuit, the implications of this law are too far-reaching and extreme to ignore. The Utah State Constitution, like its federal counterpart, has a Separation of Powers Clause, which upholds Utah’s tripartite governmental structure (i.e., executive branch, legislative branch, and judicial branch) and prevents the concentration of power into any single branch. The separation of powers concept was perhaps the foundational principle when the Constitutional Convention gathered at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1787 to draft the US Constitution.
Today, separation of powers principles are codified into every state’s laws and remain a fundamental part of American democracy. Simply put, the Utah legislature cannot flout its own separation of powers mandate and deny Utah’s judiciary, including judges of future generations, the ability to rule on issues in a way that accords with their duty to interpret the law.
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 to strike down H.B. 249 because it violates multiple articles of Utah’s state constitution, including the aforementioned Separation of Powers Clause.
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.
As our Executive Director wrote here, H.B. 249 harms the liberty of not only nonhuman individuals but humans as well. Our lawsuit challenging this law is part of our larger fight for a legal system that blindly administers justice (i.e., administers justice regardless of species).
What’s next
The State will file a Reply to our Opposition motion in April. Then, the case will either be set for oral arguments or the court will render a decision “on the papers.” As always, we’ll keep our supporters posted.