LOS ANGELES (CN) — The California Supreme Court on Thursday reversed a ruling that ordered improved conditions for elephants at Los Angeles Zoo, a setback for animal advocates who say the intelligent animals are being mistreated. 
 
 In August 2007, Los Angeles resident Aaron Leider sued L.A. Zoo Director John Lewis and the City of Los Angeles, challenging the expansion of the zoo’s elephant exhibit. Leider claimed the zoo subjected elephants to “cruel, abusive and illegal treatment” through use of chains, drugs, bullhooks and electric shocks. 
 
 In 2012, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge John Segal stopped short of ruling that the zoo’s treatment was inhumane but said officials need to take better care of the elephants. He ordered the city to stop using bullhooks or electric shocks and to exercise the elephants regularly. 
 
 A divided appeals court affirmed. 
 
 City leaders have recently highlighted conditions at the zoo, with Councilman Paul Koretz calling for the zoo to move an Asian elephant named Billy to a sanctuary. Zoo officials objected, saying that keepers are looking after the elephants. In his motion, Koretz relied on Segal’s findings in the bench trial. 
 
 Leider’s complaint said the keeper had shocked Billy and that the animal was bobbing his head – an indication, according to advocates, that he is stressed and isolated. 
 
 But the California Supreme Court on Thursday reversed the appeals court. 
 
 Justice Carol Corrigan rejected the theory in Leider’s taxpayer action: that the alleged criminal mistreatment of the animals was an unlawful use of public money. 
 
 Under California law, a taxpayer action cannot be used to enforce violations of criminal law, so an injunction against the city cannot stand, according to the unanimous court. 
 
 “Here, the trial court found that the city and its zoo director had violated penal code statutes proscribing animal abuse, but it provided them neither the right to a jury trial nor the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” Corrigan wrote. “Moreover, Leider was permitted to exercise the discretion reserved for the district attorney with regard to enforcement of the criminal law. For these reasons, the Court of Appeal’s judgment cannot stand.” 
 
 Leider’s attorney David Casselman called the ruling “extremely disappointing,” and said evidence showed that elephants had died prematurely because of conditions at the zoo. 
 
 “Having gone all the way through trial and proving the need for injunctive relief under recognized statutory authority, it was very surprising that the Supreme Court would change the rules and effectively ignore the statutory scheme that has existed for decades,” Casselman said in an interview. 
 
 He said he hoped for a retrial before a jury. 
 
 “If it’s possible, I intend to pursue this through the Legislature, or anywhere else, to protect these elephants who are suffering dying prematurely,” he said. 
 
 The zoo praised the high court’s decision. 
 
 “Today’s California Supreme Court decision validates what Angelenos already know: the LA Zoo and its staff provides the highest level of care for our elephants and all our animals,” LA Zoo spokeswoman April Spurlock wrote in an email. “Our elephants live in one of the best – and largest – elephant habitats in North America at a state-of-the-art facility that has tremendous resources, a dedicated staff, and provides top-quality health care.” 
 
 The city did not respond to a request for comment. 
 
 The court remanded the case for further proceedings. 
 
 Like this: Like Loading... ||||| The Arkansas Supreme Court's decision to lift a ban on the death penalty stole the rights of the nine convicted killers who filed suit to challenge the state's execution procedures, and it forces all state courts to continue that theft, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Wendell Griffen said in a ruling Tuesday. 
 
 "It amounts to theft of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of this state and the Constitution of the United States to a trial," the judge wrote. 
 
 The ruling issued Tuesday by Griffen, a former Court of Appeals judge known for his outspokenness, formally ends 21 months of state-court litigation over the legality of the state's execution protocols. 
 
 Griffen's dismissal of the inmates' Circuit Court lawsuit comes as eight of those inmates face lethal injection next month in four two-per-day execution sessions. 
 
 The prisoners have filed two federal lawsuits this week attempting to halt the process. 
 
 On Tuesday, they sued to stop the ongoing clemency hearings, arguing that the state is moving forward with their executions so quickly that their clemency petitions are not getting the consideration required by law. 
 
 [DOCUMENT: Read Judge Wendell Griffen's full order] 
 
 A federal lawsuit that they filed Monday disputes that the anesthetic midazolam will give them the painless death they are entitled to under constitutional protections that bar the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment. 
 
 The inmates had disputed the effectiveness of midazolam at preventing suffering as part of their 2015 state-court lawsuit before Griffen. 
 
 But they were not allowed to present their evidence in court because the Supreme Court ignored "decades" of case law to dismiss their entire lawsuit even before all of the issues the inmates had raised had been decided, Griffen wrote in Tuesday's order and memorandum. 
 
 "To think that the highest court in Arkansas would compel every other court in Arkansas to steal the last right condemned persons have to challenge the constitutionality of their execution illustrates the travesty of justice, and the damnable unfairness, this court is powerless to prevent," Griffen wrote. 
 
 State lawyers asked Griffen on March 16 to dismiss the killers' lawsuit based on the Supreme Court's June 2016 findings, a 4-3 decision written by Justice Courtney Goodson that reinstated the death penalty after a 10-year hiatus. 
 
 Arkansas has not carried out an execution since 2005 because of litigation by inmates who have disputed the legality of changes the Legislature has made to the state's execution procedures over the past several years. 
 
 On March 17, the inmates' attorneys asked Griffen to rule in their favor on issues in the lawsuit that they stated the Supreme Court holding did not address. 
 
 [EMAIL UPDATES: Get free breaking news alerts, daily newsletters with top headlines delivered to your inbox] 
 
 But the judge wrote that the Supreme Court decision required him to dismiss the lawsuit. 
 
 His 10-page ruling also states that the high court ignored decades of case law to deliberately deny the inmates their rights, and it suggests that the justices violated the oath all attorneys take to uphold the law to reach their conclusions. 
 
 "It is an affront to, and dereliction of, the very oath every lawyer and judge swore before being admitted by the Supreme Court of this state. As such, it is more than troubling and more than shameful," Griffen wrote. 
 
 Midazolam 
 
 Arkansas' execution schedule seeks to put the eight men to death before the state's supply of midazolam expires on May 1. 
 
 The drug is an anesthetic used to render the inmates unconscious so they do not feel the effects of the other two drugs used, potassium chloride to stop the heart and vecuronium bromide to stop the breathing. The state's execution law requires that lethal injections use those three specific drugs. 
 
 The 2015 suit filed by the eight prisoners, plus one other death-row inmate, challenged the effectiveness of the anesthetic. 
 
 The high court threw out the lawsuit and reinstated the death penalty on an appeal filed by state lawyers after Griffen denied the state's motion to dismiss the suit. 
 
 Griffen had rejected the state's argument that the inmates had failed to offer sufficient proof that Arkansas' execution law violated their right to be put to death in a pain-free manner. 
 
 The state's appeal also challenged Griffen's ruling that the inmates had a right to know where the state was getting its supply of execution drugs, a decision that overturned Legislature-imposed secrecy on the source of the drugs. 
 
 "The decision reversing this court skirted plaintiffs' assertion on that [midazolam] point altogether," Griffen's ruling Tuesday said. 
 
 "This court is, of course, obliged to follow that ruling. However, this court will not ignore the obvious, and apparently deliberate, effort by the Arkansas Supreme Court to deny plaintiffs an evidentiary hearing on their contention that midazolam ... is incapable of rendering someone insensate to pain while in an unconscious state." 
 
 By dismissing the entire lawsuit like it did, the Supreme Court guaranteed that these inmates -- or the ones to follow -- cannot challenge the efficiency of the execution drugs required under the current law, even if they have evidence that those drugs don't work like they should, Griffen wrote. 
 
 "The Arkansas Supreme Court has decided, in a ruling that is both plain and troubling, that plaintiffs are not entitled to a trial on their contention that the three-drug protocol prescribed [by law] will cause each of them severe pain and suffering. 
 
 "This court cannot entertain pleadings concerning those allegations. No other trial court can do so in Arkansas," he wrote. "It is troubling that a judge may not even hold a trial in this situation. It is troubling that a judge may not evaluate the proof that plaintiffs seek to offer in support of those allegations. It is troubling that a judge may not evaluate the proof defendants would offer to counter any proof plaintiffs might introduce." 
 
 Griffen's criticism of the high court also comes three months after the Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, admonished another Pulaski County circuit judge who had appeared to criticize the court in an order the justices subsequently overturned. 
 
 Judge Tim Fox had denied a request by state lawyers to stay a ruling he had made against the Department of Health until the issue could be decided on appeal. Fox wrote that to impose such an "unnecessary" delay would deprive those plaintiffs of their constitutional rights. 
 
 As an example of such a court-imposed delay, Fox's ruling referred to how the Arkansas Supreme Court never reached a decision on the question of whether the state's ban on same-sex marriages was legal, despite the justices' promise of an expedited ruling. 
 
 But it was only after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down prohibitions nationwide on those marriages that the Arkansas high court acted, by ruling that the justices did not have to make a decision since the matter had been settled for them. 
 
 Those delays "do not promote societal confidence in judicial decisions. Such delays provide a breeding ground for speculation of political intrigue or other illegitimate reasons for the delay -- whether true or not," Fox wrote. 
 
 As part of a December high-court ruling written by Justice Jo Hart that overturned Fox's decision, he was admonished for his "inappropriate remarks." 
 
 Hart wrote that as a judge, Fox had a duty under the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct to support the judiciary and not make attention-seeking remarks that undermine the public's confidence in the impartiality and fairness of the state's court system. 
 
 A Section on 03/29/2017 ||||| The Supreme Court turned away appeals this week that effectively raised the number of states allowing the practice from 19 to 30. On Tuesday, a federal appeals court rejected bans in Idaho and Nevada, which would become the 31st and 32nd states with same-sex marriage if the ruling is not put on hold for the Supreme Court to consider. 
 
 Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, right, leads a renewal of vows for former plaintiffs Mary Townley, second from left, and her partner Carol Schall, second from right, outside the John Marshall... (Associated Press) 
 
 Deb Monicken and Sue Kattas held their marriage license, which they received this summer during a brief lifting of the same-sex marriage ban in June, at the courthouse in Hudson, Wis., Monday, Oct. 6,... (Associated Press) 
 
 Kenny Wright, left, and Bo Bass talk to members of the media after they applied for their marriage license at the Oklahoma County Courthouse in Oklahoma City, Monday, Oct. 6 2014. They were the 3rd same... (Associated Press) 
 
 FILE - In this Monday, Oct. 6, 2014, file photo, plaintiffs, Moudi Sbeity, left, and his partner Derek Kitchen kiss during a gay marriage rally, in Salt Lake City. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision not... (Associated Press) 
 
 Plaintiff's Kody Partridge, right, and her wife, Laurie Wood, celebrate during a gay marriage rally Monday, Oct. 6, 2014, in Salt Lake City. Same-sex couples in Utah are celebrating after the U.S. Supreme... (Associated Press) 
 
 FILE - In this Jan. 21, 2014, file photo, plaintiffs Matthew Barraza, left, looks on as his husband Tony Milner, right, holds their son Jesse, 4, following a American Civil Liberties Union news conference,... (Associated Press) 
 
 Plaintiff Kody Partridge hoists Peggy Tomsic, attorney for the six people who brought the lawsuit against the Utah's gay marriage ban, during a gay marriage rally Monday, Oct. 6, 2014, in Salt Lake City.... (Associated Press) 
 
 People gather during a gay marriage rally Monday, Oct. 6, 2014, in Salt Lake City. Same-sex couples in Utah were celebrating after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for gay marriages to... (Associated Press) 
 
 Nicole Pries, center left, and Lindsey Oliver of Richmond kiss each other as they celebrate their same-sex marriage outside of the John Marshall Courts Building in Richmond, Va., on Monday, Oct. 6, 2014.... (Associated Press) 
 
 Here's the status of gay marriage in all 50 states: 
 
 ___ 
 
 WHERE GAY MARRIAGE IS STILL NOT LEGAL AND CASES ARE PENDING: 
 
 — ALABAMA — Lawsuits challenging the ban have been filed in each of the state's three federal court districts, but judges have yet to rule. The state is defending the prohibition. 
 
 — ALASKA — A federal judge is hearing arguments Friday in a case filed by five couples challenging the state's ban. 
 
 — ARIZONA — Lawyers in two pending federal lawsuits that challenge Arizona's same-sex marriage ban are expected to urge the judge overseeing them to take note of a ruling Tuesday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and immediately strike down the ban. The appeals court threw out gay marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada on constitutional grounds. The same issues have been raised by gay couples in Arizona's lawsuits. 
 
 — ARKANSAS — A state judge in May struck down the state's ban. The state Supreme Court brought marriages to a halt and is weighing state officials' appeal. Same-sex couples are also suing the state in federal court. 
 
 — FLORIDA — A federal judge declared the state's ban unconstitutional in mid-August, joining state judges in four counties. He issued a stay delaying the effect of his order, meaning no marriage licenses would be issued immediately issued for gay couples. 
 
 — GEORGIA — A lawsuit challenging the state's ban was filed in federal court in Atlanta in April. The state wants to dismiss the suit, but the judge has not ruled. Lawyers for the ban's challengers say the U.S. Supreme Court's denial to consider other cases supports their arguments. 
 
 — KENTUCKY — Two Kentucky cases were among six from four states heard in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati on Aug. 6. Rulings are pending on recognition of out-of-state marriages, as well as the ban on marriages within the state. 
 
 — LOUISIANA — A federal judge's ruling in September upholding the state's ban has been appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A state judge ruled in a separate case that the ban is unconstitutional, a ruling that has been suspended while the state attorney general appeals to the state Supreme Court. 
 
 — MICHIGAN — The state's ban was overturned by a federal judge in March following a rare trial that mostly focused on the impact on children. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati heard arguments Aug. 6, and a ruling is pending. 
 
 — MISSISSIPPI — The state Supreme Court has been asked to hear arguments on a woman's effort to get her marriage in another state recognized in Mississippi for purposes of getting a divorce. 
 
 — MISSOURI — The state attorney general said Monday he wouldn't appeal a state court order that Missouri recognize marriages from in other states. But two other cases are pending: A federal challenge in Kansas City and one in St. Louis that focuses on city officials who issued licenses to four couples to trigger a legal test. 
 
 — MONTANA — Four couples challenged the state's ban in a lawsuit that was filed in May and is pending in U.S. District Court. A Montana ACLU official said Tuesday's decision by the 9th Circuit to strike down Idaho's ban on gay marriage likely means Montana's voter-approved ban also will be declared unconstitutional. Republican Attorney General Tim Fox is reviewing the decision, a spokesman said. 
 
 — NEBRASKA — The state's ban remains intact. A federal judge struck it down in 2005, but an appeals court reversed the decision. Last year, a state judge refused to grant a divorce to two women who wed in Iowa in 2009. The state Supreme Court dismissed the case in June on procedural grounds. 
 
 — NORTH DAKOTA — Seven couples sued in June over the state's ban; a U.S. district judge now must decide whether to rule or hear oral arguments. 
 
 — OHIO — Two Ohio cases were argued Aug. 6 in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and a ruling is pending. In one, two gay men whose spouses were dying sued to have their out-of-state marriages recognized on their spouses' death certificates. In the other, four couples sued to have both spouses listed on their children's birth certificates. 
 
 — SOUTH DAKOTA — Six couples sued in May over the state's ban, and arguments are being scheduled in U.S. district court on the state's motion to dismiss the lawsuit; their attorney pledges to appeal to a federal circuit appeals court if they lose. 
 
 — TENNESSEE — The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Aug. 6 on whether Tennessee's refusal to recognize a valid marriage from another state is constitutional. A ruling is pending. 
 
 — TEXAS — A federal judge declared the state's ban unconstitutional, issuing a preliminary injunction. The state is appealing to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which is soon expected to set a date for arguments. 
 
 __ 
 
 WHERE GAY MARRIAGE IS LEGAL: 
 
 — CALIFORNIA (2013) 
 
 — COLORADO (Oct. 6, 2014) — The state attorney general on Tuesday ordered all the state's counties to issue licenses now that the state Supreme Court has lifted previous orders barring that. 
 
 — CONNECTICUT (2008) 
 
 — DELAWARE (2013) 
 
 — HAWAII (2013) — The Legislature legalized gay marriage last year, and couples continue to marry. An appeal is pending on a federal ruling that upheld Hawaii's previous ban. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hasn't specifically ruled on Hawaii, although on Tuesday it rejected bans in Idaho and Nevada after hearing arguments from all three states. 
 
 — IDAHO — The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday rejected appeals by state officials to retain the state's ban. 
 
 — ILLINOIS (June 2014) 
 
 — INDIANA (Oct. 6, 2014) — The state attorney general's office ordered county clerks across the state to issue licenses. Republican Gov. Mike Pence said his administration will follow the court's decisions even though he remains committed to traditional marriage. 
 
 — IOWA (2009) 
 
 — KANSAS (Oct. 6, 2014) — The American Civil Liberties Union says the Supreme Court decision in the 10th Circuit cases affects Kansas because it's in that circuit; the group plans to seek a federal court ruling to block Kansas' constitutional ban on gay marriage. Gov. Sam Brownback was defiant, saying he swore to uphold the constitution, and some same-sex couples who applied for marriage licenses were turned away. 
 
 — MAINE (2012) 
 
 — MARYLAND (2013) 
 
 — MASSACHUSETTS (2004) — The first state to legalize gay marriage. 
 
 — MINNESOTA (2013) 
 
 — NEVADA — The 9th Circuit on Tuesday rejected the state's ban. Officials in the Clark County clerk's office say the marriage license bureau in Las Vegas will begin accepting license applications Wednesday from same-sex couples. 
 
 — NEW HAMPSHIRE (2010) 
 
 — NEW JERSEY (2013) 
 
 — NEW MEXICO (2013) 
 
 — NEW YORK (2011) 
 
 — NORTH CAROLINA (Oct. 6, 2014) — The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina says it will seek an immediate ruling in federal court overturning the state's ban. The state attorney general has previously said he wouldn't challenge such a ruling. 
 
 — OKLAHOMA (Oct. 6, 2014) — Tulsa County issued a marriage license Monday to Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin, the couple who successfully challenged the state's ban. Several other counties also issued licenses. 
 
 — OREGON (May 2014) 
 
 — PENNSYLVANIA (May 2014) 
 
 — RHODE ISLAND (2013) 
 
 — SOUTH CAROLINA (Oct. 6, 2014) — A lawyer for a gay couple seeking to overturn the state's ban on gay marriage said she will ask a federal judge to immediately rule in their favor. The attorney general said he will continue to fight to uphold the ban. 
 
 — UTAH (Oct. 6, 2014) — A handful of same-sex weddings occurred in Salt Lake County after the governor directed state agencies to recognize the marriages Monday. The state said Tuesday it will also drop an appeal in which it sought not to recognize out-of-state marriages. 
 
 — VERMONT (2009) — The first state to offer civil unions, in 2001. 
 
 — VIRGINIA (Oct. 6, 2014) — A day after the first same-sex couples wed, the governor ordered state agencies to comply with the new terrain, including allowing gay employees to add spouses and dependents to their health insurance. 
 
 — WASHINGTON, D.C. (2010) 
 
 — WASHINGTON STATE (2012) 
 
 — WEST VIRGINIA (Oct. 6, 2014) — A federal judge lifted his hold on a lawsuit challenging the state's ban. 
 
 — WISCONSIN (Oct. 6, 2014) — County clerks are accepting applications for licenses which, by state law, can't be issued until after a five-day waiting period. 
 
 — WYOMING (Oct. 6, 2014) — Lingering uncertainty over whether gay marriage is allowed in Wyoming prevented same-sex couples from marrying there Tuesday, prompting four couples to file a federal lawsuit a day after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld gay marriage by refusing to hear appeals on the issue. Those appeals included one from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Wyoming.
– For years, the Los Angeles Zoo has been under a court order requiring it to exercise its three elephants on soft ground and not use electric shocks or barbed sticks on them. On Thursday, that court order was overturned in a unanimous decision by the California Supreme Court that animal activists are decrying. A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge issued the injunction against the zoo in 2012 in response to a taxpayer lawsuit alleging animal cruelty. But in what the Los Angeles Times calls a "highly technical ruling" overturning the injunction, the state's highest court said a taxpayer lawsuit (which uses civil law rules) can't be used to address criminal conduct. The taxpayer lawsuit began in 2007 when an LA resident sued over what he said was abusive treatment of the elephants, also including the use of chains and drugs, Courthouse News Service reports. A lawyer who worked on the case, for free, for more than five years says he'll attempt to find another way to get a similar injunction against the zoo, or request that the state legislature overturn the ruling. "I thought we had done something here to move the ball forward and instead the Supreme Court has allowed the zoo to take a step into the Dark Ages," he says. The Supreme Court explained in its ruling that by obtaining the injunction in such a way, the court did not allow the zoo to have a jury trial or the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The barbed sticks known as bull hooks have since been banned entirely in California, and for its part, the zoo says that it has never used and will never use them or electric shocks as disciplinary tools for its elephants, and that it will continue to follow the court order despite it being overturned.