By Marie E. Matyjaszek
At a time when courts are hearing a variety of issues many feel they have no business considering, Michigan’s Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case regarding seven chimpanzees housed in a zoo located in the Upper Peninsula.
The animal welfare organization Nonhuman Rights Project, a New York-based group, filed a habeas corpus petition in 2023 on behalf of seven chimpanzees being held “prisoner” at the DeYoung Family Zoo, which it characterizes as a private roadside facility located in Wallace. The lawsuit requested the animals be released to a sanctuary due to concerns surrounding their living conditions. The claimants argued that the animals are being held on fixed leashes; that they are separated from their offspring; and that all chimps are housed indoors throughout the entire winter.
The organization wasn’t bold enough to argue that chimpanzees are human, but claimed they possess a “common law right to bodily liberty,” and their captivity at the DeYoung Zoo denied them that right.
The Menominee Circuit Court declined to find that chimpanzees were “persons,” which made them ineligible for habeas relief. On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals spent considerable time detailing the history of the writ of habeas corpus and emphasized the law and cases which referred to the captive as a “person.”
“On the face of the complaint, the chimpanzees at defendants’ zoo are not eligible for habeas relief,” the Michigan Court of Appeals decision read. “The chimpanzees are animals, and as the common law authorities all make clear, animals – including wild animals, such as these chimpanzees – are treated as property. No exception exists for ‘intelligent’ animals, which in any event has no natural stopping point.”
The Nonhuman Rights Project then appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, which in an unsigned order last week declined to hear the case “because we are not persuaded that questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.”
Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Welch wrote a lengthy dissent as she questioned whether “habeas relief should evolve in light of our more advanced understanding of the animal kingdom.” She noted that the legislature could reconsider animal welfare laws, including those related to chimpanzee confinement, as there is considerable evidence that they “think, feel, love, grieve, and yearn.”
History has certainly shown us that laws once thought necessary have later been found to be oppressive. Unfortunately for the chimpanzees in this case, the Supreme Court followed the position of “not my circus, not my monkeys.”
The author is a Judicial Attorney at the Washtenaw County Trial Court; however, the views expressed here are her own. She can be reached by emailing her at matyjasz@hotmail.com.
The animal welfare organization Nonhuman Rights Project, a New York-based group, filed a habeas corpus petition in 2023 on behalf of seven chimpanzees being held “prisoner” at the DeYoung Family Zoo, which it characterizes as a private roadside facility located in Wallace. The lawsuit requested the animals be released to a sanctuary due to concerns surrounding their living conditions. The claimants argued that the animals are being held on fixed leashes; that they are separated from their offspring; and that all chimps are housed indoors throughout the entire winter.
The organization wasn’t bold enough to argue that chimpanzees are human, but claimed they possess a “common law right to bodily liberty,” and their captivity at the DeYoung Zoo denied them that right.
The Menominee Circuit Court declined to find that chimpanzees were “persons,” which made them ineligible for habeas relief. On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals spent considerable time detailing the history of the writ of habeas corpus and emphasized the law and cases which referred to the captive as a “person.”
“On the face of the complaint, the chimpanzees at defendants’ zoo are not eligible for habeas relief,” the Michigan Court of Appeals decision read. “The chimpanzees are animals, and as the common law authorities all make clear, animals – including wild animals, such as these chimpanzees – are treated as property. No exception exists for ‘intelligent’ animals, which in any event has no natural stopping point.”
The Nonhuman Rights Project then appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, which in an unsigned order last week declined to hear the case “because we are not persuaded that questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.”
Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Welch wrote a lengthy dissent as she questioned whether “habeas relief should evolve in light of our more advanced understanding of the animal kingdom.” She noted that the legislature could reconsider animal welfare laws, including those related to chimpanzee confinement, as there is considerable evidence that they “think, feel, love, grieve, and yearn.”
History has certainly shown us that laws once thought necessary have later been found to be oppressive. Unfortunately for the chimpanzees in this case, the Supreme Court followed the position of “not my circus, not my monkeys.”
The author is a Judicial Attorney at the Washtenaw County Trial Court; however, the views expressed here are her own. She can be reached by emailing her at matyjasz@hotmail.com.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.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
