Back to News
February 17, 2026
Judge Again Rejects Elephant ‘Personhood’ Bid — and Pennsylvania Law Is Better for It
And once again, like a repeating scene from Groundhog Day, a Pennsylvania judge made the right call by dismissing yet another lawsuit that tried to turn habeas corpus into a litigation weapon for animal rights activists trying to claim elephants are “persons.”
Judge Mary C. McGinley of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas granted the Pittsburgh Zoo & Aquarium’s motion to dismiss a petition filed by the anti-hunting Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) seeking the release of five female African elephants — Savanna, Tasha, Angeline, Victoria and Zuri. NhRP, as they are perennially prone to do, argued the elephants share with humans “the fundamental right to bodily liberty” and should be treated as legal “persons” for purposes of habeas corpus.
The dismissal protects a core remedy, respects Pennsylvania’s legal framework and avoids a precedent that would invite endless courtroom fights over animal management decisions.
What Happened
The NhRP petition, filed last year in October, asked the court to intervene and order the zoo to transfer the elephants to a sanctuary. The zoo argued that, under Pennsylvania law, animals are property and that habeas corpus is a remedy for people — not a vehicle to create animal “personhood.” The judge agreed and dismissed the case.
In a statement, the zoo said it is accredited by the Association of Zoos & Aquariums and that its elephants “are thriving under the compassionate care of their dedicated and expert professional staff.” Of course, the NhRP has said it plans to appeal.
This was not a criminal animal-cruelty case or an agency enforcement action. It was an attempt to rewrite personhood through the courts.
Habeas corpus is not a metaphor. It is a specific legal writ designed to test the legality of a person’s confinement. Courts around the country have rejected efforts to stretch it to animals.
In 2022, New York’s highest court denied a separate habeas petition filed by NhRP on behalf of Happy, an elephant at the Bronx Zoo. The New York Court of Appeals held the writ “has no applicability” to a nonhuman animal because it exists to protect the liberty of human beings and applies to a “person.”
In 2024, the Colorado Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, rejecting the NhRP’s bid to apply that state’s habeas statute to five elephants at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo. The court there similarly emphasized that the statute applies to “persons,” and elephants do not have standing to bring a habeas claim.
Pennsylvania’s dismissal fits that national legal reality: This theory has been tried, and it fails because the law’s terms mean what they say. NhRP, with its megadonor funders from Washington, D.C., and New York City, is happy to have the zoos spend their otherwise limited resources fighting these legal battles in the courts.
Why ‘Property’ Still Matters
Activists often treat “property” as if it means “unprotected.” It does not. Pennsylvania has animal-cruelty statutes and other tools to address neglect and abuse. Those remedies exist without pretending animals are legal persons.
Pennsylvania courts have long treated animals as property in civil disputes. In Snead v. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Superior Court acknowledged that animals are considered property under state law while recognizing pets can be far more than mere “things” to their owners. That baseline governs standing, remedies and due process.
If courts create “personhood” for one species in one context, the next petition can target dogs, cats, livestock or wildlife, with every husbandry disagreement reframed as “unlawful detention.”
This is also a lawfare strategy. When advocates cannot win sweeping policy changes through legislatures, they try to manufacture them through judges. The same playbook shows up in attacks on science-based wildlife management and, ultimately, on lawful hunting.
Conservation functions in the real world. It depends on clearly defined legal authority for wildlife agencies, professional standards and stable funding. Turning animal management into personhood lawsuits forces scarce resources into litigation and away from animal care, habitat work and enforcement.
Even in Pittsburgh, the facts are more nuanced than a courtroom slogan. The Pittsburgh Zoo has described a herd-management plan that includes transitioning elephants Victoria and Zuri to its International Conservation Center, a move it says is intended to strengthen elephant care and advance its conservation mission. Reasonable people can debate zoo policy. Habeas corpus is not the tool to settle that debate.
The Bottom Line
Judge McGinley’s dismissal does not “ignore” animal welfare. It keeps a human rights remedy from becoming a backdoor rewrite of personhood. Pennsylvania already has lawful mechanisms to address cruelty and to evaluate care standards. Those systems should be used and improved openly, not bypassed through creative litigation.
Courts should enforce the law as written. Legislatures should make policy. And conservation should remain grounded in science — not utopian courtroom experiments.
You may also be interested in:
Florida Wildlife Calls Bear Harvest ‘Successful’ Despite Anti-hunter Efforts to Derail
Categories: BP Item, Featured, Government Relations, Top Stories
25650
