Source: Amicus support for the fight to #FreeTheCMZElephants | Nonhuman Rights Project
In May, the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) submitted a brief to the Colorado Supreme Court, seeking to reverse a District Court decision that denied elephants Jambo, Kimba, LouLou, Lucky, and Missy a hearing on the legality of their captivity at Cheyenne Mountain Zoo (CMZ) on the grounds that they are not human. This suit aims to recognize the elephants’ right to liberty and secure their release to a sanctuary. This marks the first occasion for Colorado’s highest court to rule on nonhuman animals’ rights.
The NhRP’s legal campaign is supported by various experts through amicus curiae briefs. An amicus curiae, meaning “friend of the court,” provides expertise and arguments to assist the court. These briefs, often cited in judicial decisions, support the NhRP’s argument for elephant liberty.
Justice Edwin Cameron, a retired judge from South Africa’s highest court, argues that legal personhood can evolve to include nonhuman animals, drawing parallels with historical shifts in personhood definitions that now include previously marginalized human groups. He urges the Colorado Supreme Court to consider the elephants’ case as part of this evolving legal landscape.
Professor Maneesha Deckha from the University of Victoria contends that treating animals as property is ethically outdated. She emphasizes that recognizing animals’ inherent value aligns with contemporary scientific and legal thinking. Deckha criticizes the human exceptionalism that underpins the denial of rights to animals and calls for a departure from this viewpoint.
LGBT movement leaders Shannon Minter and Evan Wolfson compare the court’s refusal to hear the elephants’ case to past judicial errors in human rights cases. They argue that the elephants’ cognitive and social complexities warrant legal protection and that the court’s dismissal is a circular reasoning fallacy.
Twenty-four law professors from the US and Canada argue that developments in law, ethics, and science justify granting rights to nonhuman animals. They criticize the District Court’s reliance on outdated definitions and theories, advocating for a legal framework that recognizes animals as rights-holders.
UK-based animal law experts emphasize global judicial trends acknowledging elephant autonomy and cognition. They argue that procedural dismissals should not impede the ethical and legal examination of the elephants’ confinement, advocating for their release based on emerging judicial awareness.
Nine philosophers argue against the biological exclusivity of personhood, asserting that cognitive and emotional capacities should define legal rights. They reject the District Court’s reliance on social contract theory and emphasize that similar protections should extend to nonhumans incapable of social contracts.
These diverse expert contributions underscore a growing consensus that nonhuman animals, particularly cognitively complex beings like elephants, should be recognized as legal persons with inherent rights to liberty, urging the Colorado Supreme Court to grant the elephants’ habeas corpus petition.
Philosophers’ Brief
A group of philosophers specializing in animal ethics, political theory, animal cognition, behavior, and the philosophy of biology submitted this brief in support of NhRP’s position. They argue for applying ethical and rational judgment to ensure that the law is interpreted in a just manner, rejecting arbitrary distinctions that grant rights exclusively to humans.
Argument Summary: The central issue in this case is whether these elephants are entitled to habeas corpus relief, which hinges on whether they can be considered persons and thus eligible for legal rights protected by the courts. The brief argues that a non-arbitrary and reasonable definition of personhood would necessitate extending habeas corpus to the elephants.
I. Species Membership and Personhood: The brief critiques the District Court’s reliance on positive law and common usage of the term “person,” which traditionally excludes non-human animals. It argues that species membership alone cannot determine personhood, as biological concepts do not define legal and moral rights. Evolutionary biology supports the notion that no distinct essential features are exclusive to humans. The brief emphasizes that capacities such as reasoning, experiencing emotions, and acting autonomously, often used to define personhood, are also present in some non-human animals, thus making their exclusion from personhood arbitrary and unjust.
II. Social Contract, Personhood, and Rights: Judge Bentley’s reference to the human social contract as a basis for limiting rights to humans is challenged. The brief asserts that social contract theory does not preclude extending protections to non-contractors, such as children or the mentally incapacitated, who are still considered persons. It argues that personhood does not depend on the social contract; rather, the social contract depends on recognizing individuals as persons. Thus, the capacity to enter a social contract should not be a prerequisite for personhood or basic rights.
III. Issues Beyond Rights and Legal Personhood: The brief addresses the District Court’s concerns about the social impact of recognizing elephants’ personhood. It contends that arguments related to human education, conservation interests, and potential societal effects are irrelevant to the central issue of justice. The court’s own acknowledgment of changing social values and the existence of laws in other countries recognizing non-human animals as persons demonstrate that such recognition does not lead to societal collapse. The brief also emphasizes the urgency of rethinking human coexistence with other species in light of global environmental crises.
Conclusion: The brief concludes by urging the court to remedy the injustice faced by Jambo, Kimba, Loulou, Lucky, and Missy by recognizing their right to liberty and personhood, and to send the case back to the District Court for a merits hearing on the Nonhuman Rights Project’s petition. The philosophers hope that such a hearing will result in the elephants’ release to a sanctuary where they can live autonomously.
How Can You Help?
For elephant welfare to truly be taken into account, a lot has to change. As long as humans as a species continue to put our interests above the interests of non-humans, the system will seldom work in their favor.
You can help by supporting NhRP in their fight to free the CMZ elephants.
Elephant Advocate 