Key Points:

• The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that five elephants cannot claim rights under habeas corpus.
• Animal rights group Nonhuman Rights Project argued for the elephants' release, stating they experience trauma in captivity.
• The court emphasized legal personhood applies only to humans, not nonhuman animals.
• This ruling follows a similar decision from New York regarding another elephant.
• The Cheyenne Mountain Zoo defended its care for the elephants, calling the lawsuit frivolous.

In a significant ruling, the Colorado Supreme Court has determined that five elderly African elephants at Cheyenne Mountain Zoo do not possess the legal rights to contest their confinement under the writ of habeas corpus. This 6-0 decision concluded that under Colorado law, the habeas statute only applies to individuals categorized as "persons," thereby excluding nonhuman animals, regardless of their cognitive or social capacities.

The elephants in question—Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou, and Jambo—are long-time residents of the zoo, which has been their home since as early as the 1970s. The ruling came about after the Nonhuman Rights Project formally petitioned the court, arguing that the elephants, being emotionally complex and social animals, have a fundamental right to freedom and fulfillment, and should be relocated to a sanctuary.

The group's case rested on affadavits from animal biologists who claimed that the elephants suffer from confinement-related stress, yet the court stated that legal recognition of their personhood would represent a vast alteration in the existing legal framework—a change best left to legislative bodies rather than the judiciary.

Justice Maria Berkenkotter, who delivered the opinion, noted, "Because an elephant is not a person, the elephants here do not have standing to bring a habeas corpus claim." This ruling echoed a previous decision from New York's highest court regarding another elephant named Happy, further establishing a legal precedent against similar claims in the future.

In response to the court's decision, the Nonhuman Rights Project criticized the ruling, stating it perpetuates an injustice by denying liberty to nonhuman animals. The Cheyenne Mountain Zoo, on the other hand, maintained that the elephants receive high-quality care and described the lawsuit as an abuse of the judicial process aimed at garnering public donations through sensationalism.

This landmark ruling not only reflects the ongoing debates regarding animal rights and legal personhood but also underscores the challenges faced by advocacy groups in seeking reforms through existing legal systems.

For further details on this ruling and the arguments presented, refer to the original articles from BBC, Reuters, and The Hill.