July 31, 2024–Salt Lake City, Utah–The Nonhuman Rights Project has sent a notice of claim letter to the Utah Attorney General, notifying his office of the NhRP’s intent to sue to challenge the state’s “personhood” bill that unconstitutionally strips courts of their ability to independently determine and interpret laws.
Signed into law in March, H.B. 249 prohibits courts from ever recognizing “personhood,” defined as having any legal rights or legal duties, for a nonhuman entity–regardless of what the law says. The list of nonhuman entities affected by H.B. 249 includes nonhuman animals, land, bodies of water, and artificial intelligence. The law also prohibits the legislature and other government entities from ever recognizing rights or duties for those nonhuman entities. The NhRP’s notice alleges that the bill violates the Utah constitution and must be struck down. It names the state of Utah, Utah Attorney General Sean D. Reyes, and Utah Governor Spencer Cox as defendants.
The bill was introduced in the 2024 session by Representative Walt Brooks (R-District 75), who described his intent as “[defining] personhood as a human being.” A legal person is a legal term of art referring to an entity possessing at least one legal right or duty. It’s commonly misunderstood to exclusively mean a human being. Corporations are considered to be legal persons with a collection of rights and duties that differ from human beings. Additionally, Utah law treats pets like legal persons for the limited purpose of enforcing the state’s pet trust statute, which is commonly used to ensure money is spent to care for an animal in the event of the caretaker’s death.
The NhRP’s litigation on behalf of Happy, an elephant held alone in captivity in the Bronx Zoo, was cited as one reason for H.B. 249’s introduction. Happy’s case is considered historic because it marked the first time a US state high court considered whether a nonhuman animal had a legal right under the common law of habeas corpus. Two judges on that court wrote lengthy dissents in support of Happy’s right to liberty and release to an elephant sanctuary.
The bill was introduced amid a growing public debate in Utah about whether to recognize the Great Salt Lake as a legal person in order to protect it from further depletion, the ensuing collapse of the lake’s ecosystem, and the release of toxic dust from the lakebed that will endanger millions of Utahns.
“We served this notice because this law robs the judiciary of its core constitutional responsibility to determine the law and to safeguard the legal rights of others,” said the NhRP’s Executive Director, Christopher Berry. “Anybody who cares about protecting the rule of law and the role of the courts in a constitutional democracy should be deeply troubled by this overreaching bill.”
The NhRP’s litigation on behalf of nonhuman animals, begun in 2013, catalyzed a national and global debate about the inadequacy and injustice of animal welfare laws and the need to change the legal status of at least some nonhuman animals from rightless legal “things” to entities with appropriate legal rights.
Under Utah law, the NhRP must wait to file its lawsuit until 60 days after sending the notice of claim letter.
The NhRP is represented by NhRP Staff Attorney Jake Davis and local counsel Joel Ban of Ban Law Office PA based in Salt Lake City, UT.