Lawsuit Seeks Habeas Hearing, Right to Liberty for Los Angeles Zoo Elephants

UPDATE (5/16, 6 p.m. PT): Today, the Nonhuman Rights Project attempted to file a habeas petition on behalf of Billy and Tina four times: three times in person, going back and from from the civil division to the criminal division at the LA Superior Court’s direction, and one final time electronically, also at the Court’s direction. Ultimately, the Court rejected our filing. It appears to be the case that the Court doesn’t know what to do with our habeas petition, which only underscores the challenges involved in fighting in court for the freedom of a nonhuman animal. We plan to resolve this issue early next week and will share updates as we have them.  

Los Angeles, CA—Today the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) filed a habeas corpus petition in the Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of Billy and Tina, two elephants held in captivity in the Los Angeles Zoo. With the support of elephant cognition and behavior experts, the petition seeks recognition of the elephants’ common law right to liberty protected by habeas corpus and their release to an accredited sanctuary.

“Billy and Tina show clear signs of psychological distress after decades in an unnatural and sometimes abusive environment,” said Christopher Berry, Executive Director of the Nonhuman Rights Project. “We’re simply asking for a fair process where we can present evidence to a judge that a sanctuary is the only just outcome for Billy and Tina.”

Habeas corpus is a legal principle that protects against unlawful imprisonment. Common law is used to decide cases that turn on general legal principles—such as liberty and equality—as opposed to those that require interpretation of statutes, constitutions, or treaties. Historically, the common law has been uniquely responsive to evolving standards of morality, scientific discovery, and human experience. 

The NhRP is also imminently requesting that the court issue a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent the Los Angeles Zoo from moving the elephants to another zoo pending the outcome of the NhRP’s litigation. In April, the zoo announced it intended to relocate Billy and Tina to the Tulsa Zoo following the deaths of two other elephants in the zoo’s custody in 2023 and 2024.

For decades, advocates have sought to raise the alarm about the suffering of the elephants at the zoo, which contains only three acres of total usable space for the elephants and no ways for the elephants to engage in natural behavior. Free-living Asian elephants roam habitats as large as 200,000 acres.

A particular focus of concern has been Billy, who has been held alone in a barren enclosure for most of his nearly 40 years of confinement in the exhibit. The zoo has also subjected Billy to invasive semen collection procedures that often involved holding Billy in place using an elephant restraint device and having a zoo employee insert their arm into his anus and massage his prostate to stimulate ejaculation. Despite years of semen collection attempts, Billy has never sired any offspring. The most recent AZA Asian Elephant Population Analysis and Breeding & Transfer Plan recommends that Billy continue to be used for breeding purposes.

Both elephants in the Los Angeles Zoo have been observed engaging in behavior indicative of chronic stress and trauma, including rocking, swaying, and head-bobbing. If Billy and Tina were moved to Tulsa, the usable space per elephant would be even less than at the Los Angeles Zoo and in a similarly unnatural environment, as the NhRP points out in its petition.

“No zoo is an acceptable place for an elephant,” said Courtney Fern, the NhRP’s Director of Government Relations and a Los Angeles resident. “It’s wrong for the Los Angeles Zoo, which is funded and operated by the city and essentially belongs to the people of LA, to have ignored and dismissed the voices of all the Angelenos over the years who’ve expressed concern and outrage about the suffering the elephants have endured and called for their release to an accredited sanctuary. This lawsuit is about finally doing what’s right for these elephants and, we hope, ultimately celebrating the restoration of the elephants’ freedom in a sanctuary.”

The NhRP’s petition is supported by declarations from eight scientific experts on elephant cognition and behavior who detail the autonomy of elephants and make clear that the only just outcome for Billy and Tina is a sanctuary.  “The key biological and behavioral needs of elephants simply cannot be met in a zoo environment,” writes Dr. Joyce Poole, who has studied wild elephants in Africa for 50 years. “Elephants need a chance to search for their own food, to roam on soft surfaces for hours, to interact with a range of companions, and to make their own choices … Relocating [Billy and Tina] to another zoo is no solution.”

Over 800,000 people have signed a petition calling for Billy’s release to sanctuary. Several Los Angeles City Council members have introduced motions to close the zoo’s elephant exhibit or release Billy to a sanctuary. Most recently, following the zoo’s announcement about the planned transfer, Councilmember Bob Blumenfield introduced a motion to halt the relocation of the elephants until the council has an opportunity to review and vote on all relocation options, specifically accredited sanctuaries. In 2022, the Los Angeles Times’ editorial board called for Billy’s release to a sanctuary: “Billy has put in more than three decades of service at the L.A. Zoo. He has earned retirement in a place where he has more space to roam and a less stressful life.”

The NhRP is the only civil rights organization in the US dedicated solely to securing rights for nonhuman animals. Writing in The Atlantic, historian Jill Lepore called the NhRP’s litigation to free Happy the elephant from the Bronx Zoo to a sanctuary “the most important animal-rights case of the 21st century.” That litigation concluded in New York’s highest court in 2022, with Judges Rowan Wilson and Jenny Rivera issuing landmark dissenting opinions in favor of recognizing the availability of habeas corpus to certain nonhuman animals.

“We should recognize Happy’s right to petition for her liberty not just because she is a wild animal who is not meant to be caged and displayed, but because the rights we confer on others define who we are as a society,” Judge Wilson wrote. “When the majority answers, ‘No, animals cannot have rights,’ I worry for that animal, but I worry even more greatly about how that answer denies and denigrates the human capacity for understanding, empathy and compassion.”

• Download the NhRP’s habeas corpus petition and the expert declarations submitted in support of this case.
• Visit the elephants’ client page including the elephants’ biographies and information about the exhibit.
• Access the NhRP’s Media Kit for this lawsuit, including lawsuit basics, elephant biographies, and photos and videos of the elephants for use in media coverage.