## Facts

- Five captive orca whales (Tilikum, Katina, Corky, Kasatka, and Ulises) sued through purported “next friends,” including an animal-rights organization and individual advocates.
- The defendants operated marine entertainment parks where the orcas were confined and used in performances.
- Plaintiffs alleged the orcas were wild-captured and are highly social and cognitively complex animals.
- Plaintiffs claimed confinement in small, artificial tanks deprived the orcas of normal social and environmental conditions and forced them to perform for entertainment.
- The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, characterizing the confinement and use as “slavery” and “involuntary servitude” under the Thirteenth Amendment.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibitions on slavery and involuntary servitude apply to nonhuman animals.
2. If not, whether the complaint asserted a cognizable federal claim sufficient to establish subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the action with prejudice.
- The court held the Thirteenth Amendment applies only to humans and does not extend to orca whales.
- Because the Amendment did not cover the plaintiffs, the complaint did not present a cognizable federal claim and the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).
- Given the jurisdictional defect, the court did not need to resolve next-friend standing or other merits-based pleading questions.

## Legal Principles

- The Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude is limited to human beings, as shown by its historical purpose and consistent application in precedent.
- Federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction where a complaint’s asserted constitutional theory does not recognize the plaintiff as within the class protected by the provision invoked.
- When the asserted constitutional right does not exist for the plaintiffs, dismissal may be with prejudice because amendment cannot cure the legal deficiency.

## Conclusion

The court rejected an attempt to treat captive orcas as Thirteenth Amendment rights-holders, holding that the Amendment protects only humans; accordingly, the case was dismissed with prejudice for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.


Tilikum v. Sea World Parks & Ent. Inc., 842 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (S.D. Cal. 2012)