Happy is an elephant, but is she a person, too?
Lawyer argues elephant should be in sanctuary
An attorney for an animal civil rights group told New York’s highest court Wednesday that an elephant at the Bronx Zoo should be released into a spacious sanctuary based on ancient common law and the elephant’s right to bodily liberty.
Monica L. Miller, a California-based attorney for the Nonhuman Rights Project, asked the Court of Appeals to grant a writ of habeas corpus for Happy, a 51-year-old female Asian elephant who has been at the Bronx Zoo since 1977. Judges typically issue the writ to demand that a human prisoner be produced to determine if their imprisonment is legal.
“This is no place for an elephant,” Miller said of Happy’s conditions, citing reports from five scientific experts that she said had not been rebutted. At the outset of her remarks, Miller argued that Happy had been “kidnapped from Thailand as a baby.”
Miller equated the elephant’s captivity to prison. She said the precedent for using a habeas corpus dates to ancient times.
“It’s a unique remedy that provides relief for someone whose bodily autonomy is being infringed upon,” Miller told Chief Judge Janet Difiore and Associate Judges Madeline Singas, Shirley Troutman, Rowan Wilson, Anthony Cannataro, Michael Garcia and Jenny Rivera.
More than a dozen animated Nonhuman Rights Project supporters attended the arguments. In nearby Academy Park, others held signs such as “The Right to Liberty Is Unalienable,” “Happy is Not Happy” and “Let Her Be Happy.”
In court, Kenneth A. Manning, who represents the zoo’s managing entity, the Wildlife Conservation Society, countered Miller’s remarks. Manning said the question of Happy’s legal rights as a “person” was decided under a state law enacted to protect elephants. Manning said the lower courts determined that Happy was not a person and said she was not illegally detained, which would eliminate any need for the writ.
“From the standpoint of the Bronx Zoo, there’s absolutely no illegality whatsoever,” Manning told the court.
Miller argued that under common law, a habeas corpus has been granted to transfer the release of human chattel, slaves, children and spouses. Rivera, who appeared virtually, quickly reminded Miller that those cases all involved human beings. She asked Miller how the Court of Appeals could apply a habeas corpus when a nonhuman was involved.
Miller said it was arbitrary to use membership of a species as the standard. She said the issue involved the right to bodily liberty for an intelligent animal. She said elephants have shown the ability to memorize thousands of words, hold 45-minute communications with one another and mourn deaths.
More than one judge asked Miller how Happy would be gaining her liberty if she was transferred to a sanctuary operated by humans, still in captivity. Miller said two sanctuaries for elephants — one in California, another in Tennessee — are spread across more than 2,000 acres, with conditions similar to the natural environment for elephants.
The Nonhuman Rights Project and its founder, attorney Steven M. Wise, have long advocated for the legal “personhood” of animals. The group, which has described itself as the only civil rights organization in America working to achieve legal rights for nonhumans, has argued that corporations, books and a river have all been considered persons, legally speaking.
Wise waged past legal arguments before state appellate courts on behalf of chimpanzees, including Tommy, a chimp who was confined in a warehouse-type setting in Fulton County. None of the courts have agreed with his arguments, though some judges have expressed sympathy for his fight. This is the group’s first time before the Court of Appeals.
Happy’s case reached the Court of Appeals after it went before the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court’s First Department in Manhattan, where justices were visibly skeptical of Wise’s arguments. The midlevel court upheld a lower court ruling by state Supreme Court Justice Alison Tuitt in the Bronx denying Happy the habeas corpus.
In a news release, the Wildlife Conservation Society accused Wise’s group of exploiting Happy for its own agenda.
“They are not ‘freeing ’ Happy as they purport, but arbitrarily demanding that she be uprooted from her home and transferred to another facility where they would prefer to see her live,” the release stated. “This demand is based on a philosophy and does not consider her behavior, history, personality, age and special needs.”
Happy was a year old when she was captured in the wild in Asia and brought to America. She and a fellow elephant, Grumpy, were brought to the Bronx Zoo to give rides as part of an “elephant extravaganza.” In 2002, the Bronx Zoo placed Happy and Grumpy with two other elephants, Patty and Maxine, who attacked Grumpy. That caused Grumpy to be injured and put down. The zoo then separated Happy from the two other elephants and paired her with Sammie, an elephant who later died of liver disease.
She is now in the zoo with another elephant but they are not in the same pen. Manning said the two do not get along.
The court is expected to render a decision in four to six weeks.
Miller said it was arbitrary to use membership of a species as the standard. She said the issue involved the right to bodily liberty for an intelligent animal.