The Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) has asked the Michigan Supreme Court to reverse an appellate decision that affirmed a trial court’s refusal to consider whether seven chimpanzees held captive in an Upper Peninsula roadside zoo are legally entitled to their freedom.
Since 2023, the NhRP has urged the Michigan courts to recognize the chimpanzees confined in the DeYoung Family Zoo as legal persons with the right to liberty under Michigan’s common law of habeas corpus. The common law is judge-made law that’s meant to evolve in accordance with societal norms. Habeas corpus is a centuries-old means of testing the lawfulness of someone’s imprisonment that was developed under the common law. Six renowned experts in chimpanzee cognition and behavior, including the late Jane Goodall, submitted expert declarations in support of the NhRP’s case, which is the first of its kind in Michigan. Ultimately, the NhRP is asking for the chimpanzees’ release to an accredited sanctuary.
“Not allowing the DeYoung Prisoners to invoke the Great Writ devalues its noble promise of freedom … It is out of harmony with a society entering the second quarter of the twenty-first century,” the NhRP writes in its Application for Leave to Appeal. “Recognizing the DeYoung Prisoners’ right to bodily liberty is a much-needed evolution of Michigan common law, required by the demands of justice and fully in accord with the Great Writ’s tradition.”
The expert declarations aim to demonstrate that chimpanzees are autonomous beings who suffer physically and psychologically in an environment like the DeYoung Family Zoo, where they appear to be confined largely indoors in cages closed off from public view.
In October, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s December 2023 ruling in the case, which denied the chimpanzees a hearing because they’re not human. The Court of Appeals did so on the basis that 19th-century precedents set by the Michigan Supreme Court hold that all animals are considered property under the common law–thereby rendering chimpanzees ineligible for habeas relief.
The NhRP argues in its Application that those decisions have no relevance to whether chimpanzees can be considered legal persons with the right to liberty (a legal person is an entity with at least one legal right). The common law is meant to evolve over time, especially when archaic rules originating in the ancient past result in injustice. To justify maintaining the legal status quo, the Court of Appeals invoked social contract philosophy to suggest that bearing duties is a prerequisite for having the right to liberty (and therefore personhood).
“The [Court] not only misunderstood personhood but also employed reasoning that must be rejected as morally abhorrent,” the NhRP’s Application states. “Reliance on vague, poorly understood philosophy to justify denying seven suffering autonomous beings the possibility of freedom is contrary to proper judicial decision-making.”
The Animal Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan, Michigan State University School of Law Professors David Favre and Angie Vega, and the Michigan group Attorneys for Animals submitted a “friends of the court” brief in support of the NhRP’s case when it was pending in the Court of Appeals.
“The importance of this case cannot be overstated,” said Beatrice Friedlander, a founding and current member of the Animal Law Section and Attorneys for Animals. “It serves as an opening for Michiganders to think about animals in a new light. Most importantly, this case provides the Michigan Supreme Court the opportunity to adapt the law to society’s needs, to grapple with the historical, moral, and cultural basis of the legal status of animals, and to reaffirm the dynamic nature of the law. In short, by accepting the chimpanzees’ application, our state’s highest court will be poised to make a significant contribution to the jurisprudence of habeas corpus and to the very nature of our relationship with animals.”
In addition to requesting that the Michigan Supreme Court reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision, the NhRP is asking for the case to be sent back to the trial court, with instructions to hold a hearing on the merits of the NhRP’s habeas corpus complaint on the chimpanzees’ behalf.
In an October hearing before the Michigan Court of Appeals, NhRP Senior Staff Attorney Jake Davis began his arguments with the story of Tommy, the NhRP’s first client, a chimpanzee who died alone in a building in the DeYoung Family Zoo after he was transferred there from New York.
“His life can be characterized as little more than restrictive confinement informed by devastating traumas,” Davis said. Tommy’s case resulted in a historic opinion by New York Court of Appeals Judge Eugene Fahey urging his fellow judges to reconsider the legal status of chimpanzees as rightless “things.”
In the NhRP’s case on behalf of an elephant named Happy held in captivity in the Bronx Zoo, the New York Court of Appeals became the first U.S. state high court to hear arguments concerning a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of a nonhuman animal. Historian Jill Lepore described it as “the most important animal-rights case of the 21st century.” That litigation concluded in 2022, with Judges Rowan Wilson and Jenny Rivera issuing landmark dissenting opinions in favor of recognizing the availability of habeas corpus to certain nonhuman animals. Judge Wilson, Rivera, and Fahey’s opinions are cited in the NhRP’s Michigan case.
A decision on the NhRP’s Application is expected in the coming months. The NhRP remains hopeful the Michigan courts will ensure justice is done and grant the chimpanzees relief from their unlawful confinement.
Since 2023, the NhRP has urged the Michigan courts to recognize the chimpanzees confined in the DeYoung Family Zoo as legal persons with the right to liberty under Michigan’s common law of habeas corpus. The common law is judge-made law that’s meant to evolve in accordance with societal norms. Habeas corpus is a centuries-old means of testing the lawfulness of someone’s imprisonment that was developed under the common law. Six renowned experts in chimpanzee cognition and behavior, including the late Jane Goodall, submitted expert declarations in support of the NhRP’s case, which is the first of its kind in Michigan. Ultimately, the NhRP is asking for the chimpanzees’ release to an accredited sanctuary.
“Not allowing the DeYoung Prisoners to invoke the Great Writ devalues its noble promise of freedom … It is out of harmony with a society entering the second quarter of the twenty-first century,” the NhRP writes in its Application for Leave to Appeal. “Recognizing the DeYoung Prisoners’ right to bodily liberty is a much-needed evolution of Michigan common law, required by the demands of justice and fully in accord with the Great Writ’s tradition.”
The expert declarations aim to demonstrate that chimpanzees are autonomous beings who suffer physically and psychologically in an environment like the DeYoung Family Zoo, where they appear to be confined largely indoors in cages closed off from public view.
In October, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s December 2023 ruling in the case, which denied the chimpanzees a hearing because they’re not human. The Court of Appeals did so on the basis that 19th-century precedents set by the Michigan Supreme Court hold that all animals are considered property under the common law–thereby rendering chimpanzees ineligible for habeas relief.
The NhRP argues in its Application that those decisions have no relevance to whether chimpanzees can be considered legal persons with the right to liberty (a legal person is an entity with at least one legal right). The common law is meant to evolve over time, especially when archaic rules originating in the ancient past result in injustice. To justify maintaining the legal status quo, the Court of Appeals invoked social contract philosophy to suggest that bearing duties is a prerequisite for having the right to liberty (and therefore personhood).
“The [Court] not only misunderstood personhood but also employed reasoning that must be rejected as morally abhorrent,” the NhRP’s Application states. “Reliance on vague, poorly understood philosophy to justify denying seven suffering autonomous beings the possibility of freedom is contrary to proper judicial decision-making.”
The Animal Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan, Michigan State University School of Law Professors David Favre and Angie Vega, and the Michigan group Attorneys for Animals submitted a “friends of the court” brief in support of the NhRP’s case when it was pending in the Court of Appeals.
“The importance of this case cannot be overstated,” said Beatrice Friedlander, a founding and current member of the Animal Law Section and Attorneys for Animals. “It serves as an opening for Michiganders to think about animals in a new light. Most importantly, this case provides the Michigan Supreme Court the opportunity to adapt the law to society’s needs, to grapple with the historical, moral, and cultural basis of the legal status of animals, and to reaffirm the dynamic nature of the law. In short, by accepting the chimpanzees’ application, our state’s highest court will be poised to make a significant contribution to the jurisprudence of habeas corpus and to the very nature of our relationship with animals.”
In addition to requesting that the Michigan Supreme Court reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision, the NhRP is asking for the case to be sent back to the trial court, with instructions to hold a hearing on the merits of the NhRP’s habeas corpus complaint on the chimpanzees’ behalf.
In an October hearing before the Michigan Court of Appeals, NhRP Senior Staff Attorney Jake Davis began his arguments with the story of Tommy, the NhRP’s first client, a chimpanzee who died alone in a building in the DeYoung Family Zoo after he was transferred there from New York.
“His life can be characterized as little more than restrictive confinement informed by devastating traumas,” Davis said. Tommy’s case resulted in a historic opinion by New York Court of Appeals Judge Eugene Fahey urging his fellow judges to reconsider the legal status of chimpanzees as rightless “things.”
In the NhRP’s case on behalf of an elephant named Happy held in captivity in the Bronx Zoo, the New York Court of Appeals became the first U.S. state high court to hear arguments concerning a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of a nonhuman animal. Historian Jill Lepore described it as “the most important animal-rights case of the 21st century.” That litigation concluded in 2022, with Judges Rowan Wilson and Jenny Rivera issuing landmark dissenting opinions in favor of recognizing the availability of habeas corpus to certain nonhuman animals. Judge Wilson, Rivera, and Fahey’s opinions are cited in the NhRP’s Michigan case.
A decision on the NhRP’s Application is expected in the coming months. The NhRP remains hopeful the Michigan courts will ensure justice is done and grant the chimpanzees relief from their unlawful confinement.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
