Way back in December of 2020, an activist animal rights group tried to get "Happy," an elephant in the Bronx Zoo, moved to a wildlife sanctuary by claiming that Happy deserved habeas corpus; that its liberty had been unduly taken away from it.
In court, an appellate judge ruled that the elephant did not have human rights because…well…human rights are for humans, so habeas corpus did not apply.
Of course, The Nonhuman Rights Project accepted that ruling and moved on—
Right into an appeal to New York's highest court!
I bet you didn't see that coming.
That's right for the past couple of weeks, New York's highest court has been spending their time doing important things like hearing a case arguing that this elephant is a person and should be granted all the rights a person has.
Now, I'll be honest; I did not expect the best outcome here. I mean this is New York, the place that allows abortions up to the point of birth; it's questionable whether they know what a person is.
But while I'm still not convinced New Yorkers know what a person is, in this case, their highest court has ruled that whatever it is, an elephant is not one.
I can't believe I even have to say it, but once again, the New York legal system has ruled that an elephant is not a person. In a 5-2 decision, the majority written opinion stated that habeas corpus
has no applicability to Happy, a nonhuman animal who is not a ‘person' subjected to illegal detention.
While no one disputes that elephants are intelligent beings deserving of proper care and compassion, the courts below properly granted the motion to dismiss the petition.
At this point, I would like to point out the numbers in that decision: 5 to 2. That means that two members of New York's highest court looked at Happy the Elephant and thought, "Maybe, could be a person."
Just for fun, here are what the two dissenting judges wrote:
Judge Rowan Wilson: "We should recognize Happy's right to petition for her liberty not just because she is a wild animal who is not meant to be caged and displayed, but because the rights we confer on others define who we are as a society."
Judge Jenny Rivera: "The law has a mechanism to challenge this inherently harmful confinement, and Happy should not be denied the opportunity to pursue and obtain appropriate relief by writ of habeas corpus."
Maybe it's just me, but it sure sounds like they're making the case that an elephant is a person.
In looking at their biographies, the biggest differences between these two judges and the other five is that they worked in non-profit, charity fields before becoming members of the highest court. The rest all worked in parts of the justice system.
I'm not entirely sure why working in the non-profit world would make it difficult to determine what a person is, but it is interesting nonetheless.
Whatever the case, Happy will once more be staying where she is at the zoo.
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇
