Chimpanzees in litigation: Landmark ruling and case history
On April 20th, for the first time in history, a judge granted an order to show cause and writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a nonhuman animal. The following day, the Judge amended the order striking out “writ of habeas corpus” from the title of her order.
Scientists who study chimps have found more and more similarities between them and humans. But in the eyes of the law, chimps are seen as property, something that can be bought and sold.
Three lawsuits filed in 2013 in New York State by the Nonhuman Rights Group and animal rights lawyer Steven Wise involve the rights of four chimps. The first suit filed argued that a chimpanzee named Tommy was a legal person entitled to a limited right to liberty. The suit attempted to move Tommy away from his owners and allow him to reside in a sanctuary. Wise founded the Nonhuman Rights Project and has practiced animal protection law for 30 years.
From a legal perspective, this case was, as TIME called it ‘potentially revolutionary’. Not only was it the first ever lawsuit filed on behalf of chimpanzees to attempt to gain bodily, liberty, but it also controversially argued to extend habeas corpus to a non-human. Habeas corpus is used in cases addressing allegations of unlawful imprisonment, and the right allows someone being held captive to request that a judge force his or her captors to explain the imprisonment.
In 1772, Chief Justice Lord Mansfield ruled that James Somerset could not be held as someone’s property and was a ‘legal person’. This set a precedent for lawsuits in the north in which former slaves were declared ‘legal persons’ with fundamental rights and set free. The Nonhuman Rights Project align their fight with the emancipation of slaves. They argue that “not long ago, people generally agreed that human slaves could not be legal persons…[w]e will assert, based on clear scientific evidence that it’s time to take the next step and recognize that these nonhuman animals cannot continue to be exploited as the property of their human ‘owners.’
Jane Goodall was among the experts who provided testimonials. The case did not argue that Tommy is a human, but that he, as a chimpanzee, has qualities that allow him the very basic legal right not to be imprisoned.
Tommy’s owner for the last 12 years, Pat Lavery, was surprised by the lawsuit. He says Tommy’s cage meets US Department of Agriculture standards and that he also agrees chimps should live in the wild, “but the sad fact is that not all of them do and that’s where people like me come in, spending $100,000 of my own money to help out and buying monkey chow by the ton.”
Lower court judges denied their petitions for the case. You can read the legal documents here.
The two cases filed just after Tommy’s suit in New York State were on behalf of three other chimps. Two of them, Hercules and Leo, are chimps owned by the New Iberia Research Center and used for locomotion studies at Stony Brook University. These are the two chimps that Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffe implicitly determined to potentially be legal persons for the purpose of habeas corpus in the landmark ruling last month.
The Nonhuman Rights Project makes their long term plans clear: “Our goal is, very simply, to breach the legal wall that separates all humans from all nonhuman animals. Once this wall is breached, the first nonhuman animals on earth will gain legal “personhood” and finally get their day in court – a day they so clearly deserve.”
If non-humans are given the right to sue for the right to retire to sanctuaries based on the argument that they are illegally imprisoned, is it unreasonable to think that damages could be a part of future litigation in this area? Of course chimps cannot spend an economic damages award, but could damages be a relevant tool for ‘punishing’ defendants found guilty of violating rights that may be granted to chimps in the future? Could an animals pain and suffering be figured into potential damages? Or could money an owner earned for the work of an animal be considered in litigation?
Litigation relying on similar arguments is appearing abroad. The Spanish parliament approved a resolution which argues three human rights should be extended to apes – life, liberty and freedom from psychological and physical torture.
Learn more: Visit the Nonhuman Rights Project interactive map to learn their view on the challenges and opportunities for litigation in each state.
Attorney Steven Wise’s interview with Huffington Post:
