124 A.D.3d 148
N.Y. App. Div.2014Background
- Tommy the chimpanzee is being kept on respondents' property in Gloversville, New York.
- Petitioner sought a habeas corpus proceeding under CPLR article 70 to challenge Tommy's detention.
- Petitioner submitted expert affidavits arguing chimpanzees have high-level cognitive abilities warranting personhood.
- Supreme Court held that the writ's term 'person' does not include chimpanzees, and refused to sign an order to show cause.
- Appellate review focused on whether common-law habeas relief may extend to nonhumans, not on Tommy's living conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a chimpanzee a 'person' under CPLR 7002(a)? | Tommy should be treated as a person for habeas relief. | Chimpanzees are not legal persons; duties and rights accrue only to humans or designated entities. | Chimpanzees are not persons under CPLR 7002. |
| Should the common-law writ of habeas corpus be extended to nonhuman animals? | Writ should be flexible to protect animal autonomy. | Historically nonhuman animals have not been afforded habeas relief and should not be now. | Court declines to extend habeas corpus rights to chimpanzees. |
| What is the source of rights and duties for legal personhood in animals? | Rights can be derived from social-contract-like arguments for moral agency. | Legal personhood requires duties and societal responsibilities; animals lack them. | Personhood hinges on rights and duties; chimpanzees lack legal duties. |
| What protections exist for animals despite not granting habeas relief? | Legislature should extend protections to chimpanzees. | Current statutes already protect animals; broader rights are unnecessary. | Legislative action is appropriate to extend protections, not common-law habeas relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Keitt v McMann, 18 NY2d 257 (1966) (writ's flexible reach; historical scope)
- United States v Mett, 65 F3d 1531 (9th Cir. 1995) (nonhuman entities not granted habeas relief)
- Waste Mgt. of Wisconsin, Inc. v Fokakis, 614 F2d 138 (7th Cir. 1980) (habeas relief limits observed)
- Cetacean Community v Bush, 386 F3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2004) (animals not recognized as persons)
- Tilikum ex rel. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v Sea World Parks & Entertainment, Inc., 842 F Supp 2d 1259 (SD Cal. 2012) (animal rights litigation; lack of habeas relief to animals)
- Citizens to End Animal Suffering & Exploitation, Inc. v New England Aquarium, 836 F Supp 45 (D. Mass. 1993) (animals not granted habeas relief)
- Smith v ConAgra Foods, Inc., 431 S.W.3d 200 (Ark. 2013) (definition of 'person' includes humans or entities with rights/duties)
- In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) (rights-based due process context for persons)