At a time when courts are hearing a variety of issues many feel they have no business in, Michigan’s Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case regarding seven chimpanzees housed in an Upper Peninsula Zoo. The animal welfare organization Nonhuman Rights Project 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. The lawsuit requested the animals be released to a sanctuary due to concerns surrounding their living conditions. Allegations included the animals being held on fixed leashes, separating offspring, isolating chimps, and housing all chimps indoors 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 illegible for habeas relief. On appeal, the 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.” The crux of this case was whether chimpanzees could be considered persons.
While human beings are considered “natural” persons, societal constructions have led to the creation of artificial persons, like corporations. Animals have long been considered property, and the Court of Appeals was not persuaded by the argument that they could be viewed as persons or that an exception should be made for “intelligent” wild animals. Nonhuman Rights Project then appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, which denied the application for leave to appeal.
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 oppressive. Unfortunately for the chimpanzees in this case, the Supreme Court followed the position of “not my circus, not my monkeys.”
