Tilikum v. Sea World Parks & Entertainment, Inc.
842 F. Supp. 2d 1259
S.D. Cal.2012Background
- Next Friends filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that captive killer whales are held in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.
- Plaintiffs are five orca whales represented by Next Friends, including PETA and individual advocates.
- Sea World moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of standing and failure to state a claim.
- Court granted amicus CEFR status but denied oral argument.
- Court concluded the Thirteenth Amendment applies only to humans and dismissed for lack of standing under Rule 12(b)(1) with prejudice.
- Court noted that while animals may have other legal protections, the Thirteenth Amendment provides no relief to non-human plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Thirteenth Amendment apply to non-humans? | Next Friends contend Thirteenth Amendment protects oreas. | Thirteenth Amendment covers only humans. | Thirteenth Amendment does not apply to non-humans. |
| Do Next Friends have standing to sue on behalf of oreas? | Next Friends have constitutional standing to enforce rights of oreas. | Standing requires injury in fact to a real party in interest. | No standing; case dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Can the action be maintained under Rule 17 for capacity to sue? | Next Friends seek to enforce rights on behalf of oreas. | Rule 17 requires a valid underlying substantive right; Thirteenth Amendment offers no relief to oreas. | Rule 17 analysis aligns with standing result; action dismissed. |
| Is there any other basis to redress animal welfare through this suit? | Some statutes protect animals and might provide relief. | Thirteenth Amendment relief is unavailable; other statutes may exist but not here. | Thirteenth Amendment relief unavailable; case dismissed on jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cetacean Community v. Bush, 386 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2004) (standing requires injury in fact and redressability)
- Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) (thirteenth amendment protections apply to persons only)
- Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, ) (1938) (historical interpretation of constitutional provisions)
- United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941) (interpretation of constitutional language in historical context)
- U.S. v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928 (2009) (Rule 17 standing inquiry hinges on substantive law)