The law has defined corporations, individuals, governments, legal entities, and estates as a "person." When given the opportunity to give personhood to an elephant, however, courts have declined.
Twice.
On January 21, 2025, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that an animal rights group's petition to apply habeas corpus to a group of elephants in a Colorado Springs zoo didn't have legal ground to stand on. This confirmed the decision rendered by the district court in 2024.
A Quest for New Stomping Grounds
In the original filing, the nonprofit Nonhuman Rights Project (NRP) submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of five elephants at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo in Colorado Springs. The group claimed that the elephants in question — Missy, Kimba, LouLou, Jambo, and the perhaps erroneously named Lucky — were showing signs of brain damage due to their current incarceration.
In the suit, NRP alleged that the African elephants were in a prison that limited their natural inclination to roam vast distances. By establishing habeas corpus for the elephants, they would gain the right to have NRP challenge their detention through legal actions available for those considered "people."
The goal was to have the elephants transferred to one of two elephant sanctuaries in the United States. Given their advanced age, transferring them to a different zoo or returning them to Africa were not presented as viable alternatives by NRP.
This wasn't the first time that the Nonhuman Rights Project had sought personhood rights for an elephant through the legal system. In 2022 they sued for habeas corpus rights for Happy, an elephant at the Bronx Zoo in New York. While acknowledging that elephants are highly intelligent and worthy of compassion, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that they are not people.
Rocky Mountain Low
The decision handed down by the Colorado Supreme Court echoed that of New York's. While empathizing with the elephants' alleged plight, Justices Berkenkotter, Marquez, Boatright, Gabriel, Hart, and Samour agreed that elephants fit no known definition of "person" and thus weren't entitled to a writ of habeas corpus.
This is despite Colorado's habeas corpus statute not defining what a person is. The court relied on definitions provided elsewhere.
Both Colorado and New York courts seemed leery of opening the Pandora's Box that would occur if an animal were granted personhood. While this instance was for a specific group of elephants, filings for any and all animals imaginable would be on the table if the court had granted NRP's request. The Justices suggested NRP seek change through legislative means instead.
Creatures (Not People) Big and Small
Granting animals the same rights afforded to humans appears to be a step too far for the judiciary at this point. Whether NRP will try again with elephants in a different jurisdiction remains to be seen.
Laws to protect animals exist. Whether it's protecting the natural habitats of wildlife by preventing land development or placing an animal on the endangered species list, attempts are made for their well-being. But personhood? So far, the answer is a resounding no from courts.
Related Resources
- Writ of Habeas Corpus Under the U.S. Constitution (FindLaw's U.S. Constitution Section)
- Slap Hippo in Zoo, Face Criminal Charges (FindLaw's Legally Weird)
- Endangered Species Act Protects Zoo Animals From Disruptive Behavior (FindLaw's Law Blog)
