Tilikum v. Sea World Parks & Entertainment, Inc.
88 A.L.R. 6th 725, 842 F. Supp. 2d 1259, 2012 WL 399214 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude applies exclusively to human beings and does not extend legal protection or standing to non-human animals.
Facts:
- Tilikum, Katina, Corky, Kasatka, and Ulises are five orca whales, members of the Orcinus orca species.
- These orcas were born free and lived in their natural environment until they were captured off the coasts of British Columbia and Iceland.
- Sea World Parks & Entertainment, Inc. and Sea World, LLC (collectively "Sea World") hold these five orcas captive at their entertainment facilities in Orlando, Florida, and San Diego, California.
- Next Friends (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Richard O’Barry, Ingrid N. Visser, Howard Garrrett, Samantha Berg, and Carol Ray) allege that Sea World confines the orcas in barren concrete tanks.
- Next Friends claim that this confinement causes the orcas to suffer severe distress, live substantially shortened lives, display physiological and behavioral abnormalities, be deprived of natural behaviors and cultural traditions, and be subjected to artificial insemination or sperm collection, all while Sea World profits from their captivity.
Procedural Posture:
- On October 25, 2011, Next Friends, acting on behalf of five orca whales (Tilikum, Katina, Corky, Kasatka, Ulises), filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against Sea World Parks & Entertainment, Inc. and Sea World, LLC, seeking a declaration that the orcas were held in violation of Section One of the Thirteenth Amendment and injunctive relief.
- Sea World moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) (for lack of subject matter jurisdiction) and Rule 12(b)(6) (for failure to state a claim) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
- On January 24, 2012, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted the application of Center for the Expansion of Fundamental Rights, Inc. (CEFR) to appear as amicus curiae and file a memorandum in support of the Plaintiffs.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude apply to non-human animals, specifically orca whales held in captivity, thereby granting them standing to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief?
Opinions:
Majority - Jeffrey T. Miller
No, the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude does not apply to non-human animals, as its plain language, historical context, and judicial interpretations demonstrate it only extends to human beings. The court began by noting that for a federal court to have subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiffs must have Article III standing, meaning they must have suffered a cognizable injury that can be redressed by a favorable decision. The court then determined whether the Thirteenth Amendment affords any legal protection to the orcas. The court found that the issues raised were of first impression regarding the Thirteenth Amendment's application to non-persons. Examining the Amendment’s plain language, historical context, and judicial interpretations, the court concluded that it applies only to 'persons.' Historical definitions of 'slavery' from 1864 defined it as 'the state of entire subjection of one person to the will of another.' The Supreme Court in the Slaughter-House Cases (1872) clarified that 'servitude' is qualified by 'involuntary,' which 'can only apply to human beings.' Further, the Amendment’s phrase 'except as a punishment for crime' implies application to persons, as only persons are subject to criminal convictions. The Emancipation Proclamation similarly referred to 'all persons held as slaves.' The court distinguished the Thirteenth Amendment from other constitutional amendments (like the Fourteenth and Eighth) that are subject to broader, evolving interpretations, stating that the Thirteenth Amendment targets a 'single issue: the abolition of slavery within the United States,' with clear and concise language. Since 'slavery' and 'involuntary servitude' are 'uniquely human activities,' there is no basis to apply the Thirteenth Amendment to non-humans. Consequently, the orcas lacked standing to bring a Thirteenth Amendment claim, and the court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).
Analysis:
This case establishes a firm precedent that the Thirteenth Amendment is exclusively applicable to human beings, thereby precluding its use as a constitutional basis for challenging animal captivity or advocating for animal personhood. It reinforces the legal distinction between humans and animals concerning fundamental constitutional rights, channeling future animal rights advocacy efforts toward statutory or common law remedies rather than direct constitutional claims. The ruling reflects a strict textualist and originalist interpretation of the Thirteenth Amendment, limiting its expansive potential and emphasizing the specific historical context of its enactment.
