Does the Thirteenth Amendment apply to whales?

In deciding an issue of first impression, the US District Court for the Southern District of California says no and dismisses the complaint of the plaintiffs (five orca whales by their next best friends, PETA, et. al.)[1].

The Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude. Plaintiffs alleged that the capture and confinement of the five whales by defendant Sea World deprived the whales of liberty, forced them to live in unnatural and harmful conditions, being forced to perform tricks all to the great profit of Sea World.

In moving to dismiss the complaint, Sea World raised arguments of standing and capacity for the plaintiffs to bring the action. In an absence of statutory authority or precedential guidance the court conducted an analysis of whether or not the Thirteenth Amendment afforded legal protection to the whale plaintiffs.

The court concluded that the Thirteenth Amendment is only applicable to human animals and dismissed the complaint for a lack of standing. In a broad brush analysis of the historical significance of the famous Slaughter-House Cases[2] and the wording of President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, the court concluded that a reasonable view of the terms “slavery” and “involuntary servitude” only applies such terms to humans. The court also discussed the significance of the language “except as a punishment for a crime” contained within the Amendment as only being applicable to humans, as animals are incapable of committing crimes.

The court also declined to adopt PETA’s alternative argument that the constitutional principle of slavery should be extended to apply to changing times and conditions as was done in the context of privacy rights[3], separate but equal[4], sex discrimination[5] and protections for criminal defendants[6]. The court found that the Thirteenth Amendment is not reasonably subject to an expansive interpretation and is not subject to changing conditions and societal norms as it targets a single issue, the abolition of slavery.

Interestingly, in its conclusion, the court recognized that “[e]ven though the plaintiffs lack standing…that is not to say that animals have no legal rights…including statutes that ‘punish those who violate statutory duties that protect animals’.”[7] The court also commented that the plaintiff’s goal of protecting the whales was laudable, however no relief was available as the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims.


[1] Tilikum, Katina, Corky, Kasatka and Ulises v. Sea World Parks, et. al., (S.D. California, February 8, 2012)
[2] 83 US 36 (1872)
[3] Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965)
[4] Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954)
[5] United States v. Virginia, 518 US 515 1996)
[6] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)
[7] Citing Cetacean Community v. Bush, 386 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2004)