What to say about the Colorado Supreme Court's recent decision in Nonhuman Rights Project v. Cheyenne Mountain Zoo, No. 24SA21 (Jan. 21, 2025), wherein the court resolved the momentous and highly controversial question of whether an elephant is a person?
Our first temptation is to see this through the takings lens (surprise), and snark that courts seem be very willing to consider ridiculous cases like this one, determine whether a monkey owns a "selfie" that he snapped, and rule that bees qualify as "fish" in a statute because the legislature didn't think to modify the term "invertebrate" in a list of marine invertebrates with the term "marine" -- yet it is beneath the dignity of judges to consider cases where -- oh, the humanity! -- they may be called on to be Super Zoning Boards of Appeals.
Our other snarky thought was the outcome of this case tells us one thing: the Colorado habeas corpus statute under review here was not subject to rational basis test.
But if you really want to know what this case was about, dig this: plaintiffs sought habeas relief under Colorado's statute, which recognizes the right of "any person" to seek the Great Writ to challenge the legality of his or her confinement. The plaintiffs? Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou, and Jambo, "five elderly African elephants [you heard me] that live at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo." Slip op. at 4. Allegedly subject to inhuman conditions at the zoo.
Read the opinion if you want to understand why it took the court 20 pages to reject the claim for lack of standing. That's right, elephants are not persons. Soylent Green may be people, but elephants ... no. Whoa, who knew?
That kinda dung may fly in a California court where bees are fish, but this is Colorado, the Switzerland of America!
More on the decision here.
And that brings us to our final snarky thought. Someone had to green light this case. It reminds me of those "rights of nature" cases where the plaintiff is a river or mountain, claiming that a polluter is injuring the river's rights. Like there, we want to see the retainer agreement by which the elephants agreed that these lawyers represent their interests. After all, those very same elephants told us in an attorney-client privileged communication that we cannot disclose, that they are just fine and wanted to hire us to testify for the zoo.
That's our story and we're sticking to it.
Nonhuman Rights Project v. Cheyenne Mountain Zoo, No. 24SA21 (Colo. Jan. 21, 2025)