 "This undated photo provided by the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo shows elephants Kimba, front, and Lucky, back, at the Zoo in Colorado Springs, Colorado. AP")
Elephants may be “majestic,” but they are not humans.
This is what a US court has ruled about the five elephants, currently being held at a Colorado zoo.
The ruling comes after an animal rights group brought a lawsuit seeking their release, arguing that elephants showed signs of chronic frustration and brain damage as the zoo was essentially a “prison” for gentle giants.
Here’s what the court said.
What is the lawsuit against the zoo?
The Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) filed the lawsuit against the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo in May 2024, alleging the park in Colorado Springs kept five elderly African elephants named Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou and Jambo “unlawfully confined.”
It alleged that the zoo mistreated its elephants and caused them chronic frustration, stress, physical disabilities, and brain damage because the zoo is essentially a prison for such intelligent and social creatures, which are known to roam for miles a day.
The nonprofit group wanted the elephants to be transferred to a “suitable elephant sanctuary,” according to the suit.
It referenced the US Constitution’s habeas corpus provision, which specifies conditions for detaining and imprisoning people and provides ways to get their release.
NhRP had argued elephants have a “right to bodily liberty because they are autonomous and extraordinarily cognitively and socially complex beings."
For those unversed, NhRP had previously filed the suit in district court, which was in favour of the zoo. They appealed to the state’s highest court after the lower court’s decision.
Also read: Why there is a giant drop in population of African elephants in 50 years
What did the top court say in its ruling?
The Colorado Supreme Court said that the animals were not covered by the laws the rights group was pointing to, explaining that Colorado’s statutes only authorize habeas relief for “any person.”
It said, “It bears noting that the narrow legal question before this court does not turn on our regard for these majestic animals generally or these five elephants specifically.”
“We conclude that the district court correctly held that Colorado’s habeas statute only applies to persons, and not to nonhuman animals, no matter how cognitively, psychologically, or socially sophisticated they may be,” the State Supreme Court Justice Maria Berkenkotter wrote in her ruling.
How did the group respond to the ruling?
The NRP reflected on the ruling, stating that it reiterated a “clear injustice” and predicted that future courts would reject the idea that only people are entitled to liberty.
“As with other social justice movements, early losses are expected as we challenge an entrenched status quo that has allowed Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou, and Jambo to be relegated to a lifetime of mental and physical suffering,” it said in a statement.
In a statement to USA Today, NhRP said, “Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou and Jambo are autonomous beings who’ve been stripped of all control over their lives.”
The group also referenced the lower court’s ruling despite agreeing with them that the elephants “cannot function normally in captivity.”
Also read: How many elephants does India have? You will probably know by June 2025
What is the zoo saying?
According to USA Today, which cited the decision, the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo “vigorously disputed” the allegations and “pushed back against the premise that the elephants were receiving anything short of remarkable care” in their plea to dismiss the group’s case.
Additionally, the park countered that the group’s petition lacked a legal basis as their legal defence “does not extend to nonhuman animals.”
The zoo issued a news release after the court’s unanimous ruling on Tuesday, calling the NhRP’s lawsuit “frivolous.”
“While we’re happy with this outcome, we are disappointed that it ever came to this,” the zoo said, adding, “For the past 19 months, we’ve been subjected to their misrepresented attacks, and we’ve wasted valuable time and money responding to them in courts and in the court of public opinion.”
They also referenced NhRP’s previous attempts to unsuccessfully sue “several other reputable zoos,” including in New York, California, Colorado Springs and Hawaii.
The zoo was referring to a similar court verdict in New York in 2022 when an elephant named Happy at the Bronz Zoo was not allowed to escape.
“If they continue this route — with us or with other reputable zoos — we hope people will remember that NhRP is abusing court systems to fundraise and to pay for ‘legal fees’, as they claimed in a recent social media video — aka their salaries,” the zoo said.
“The courts have proven now five times that their approach isn’t reasonable, but they continue to take it. It seems their real goal is to manipulate people into donating to their cause by incessantly publicizing sensational court cases with relentless calls for supporters to donate,” it added.
With inputs from agencies