Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. ex rel. Happy v. Breheny
| Citation | 38 N.Y.3d 555,197 N.E.3d 921,176 N.Y.S.3d 533 |
| Docket Number | 52 |
| Decision Date | 14 June 2022 |
| Parties | In the Matter of NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT, INC., on Behalf of Happy, Appellant, v. James J. BREHENY, in His Official Capacities as Executive Vice President and General Director of Zoos and Aquariums of the Wildlife Conservation Society and Director of the Bronx Zoo, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
38 N.Y.3d 555
197 N.E.3d 921
176 N.Y.S.3d 533
In the Matter of NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT, INC., on Behalf of Happy, Appellant,
v.
James J. BREHENY, in His Official Capacities as Executive Vice President and General Director of Zoos and Aquariums of the Wildlife Conservation Society and Director of the Bronx Zoo, et al., Respondents.
No. 52
Court of Appeals of New York.
Decided June 14, 2022
Monica L. Miller, admitted pro hac vice, Novato, California, Nonhuman Rights Project, New Hyde Park (Elizabeth Stein of counsel), and Steven M. Wise, admitted pro hac vice, Coral Springs, Florida, for appellant.
Phillips Lytle LLP, Buffalo (Kenneth A. Manning, Joshua Glasgow and William V. Rossi of counsel), for respondents.
Super Law Group, LLC, New York City (Reed Super of counsel), for Martha C. Nussbaum, amicus curiae.
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Washington, D.C. (Bezalel A. Stern and Ira T. Kasdan, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for Protect the Harvest and others, amici curiae.
Chaffetz Lindsey LLP, New York City (David M. Lindsey of counsel), for John Berkman and others, amici curiae.
Richman Law & Policy, Irvington (Jay Shooster of counsel), for Christine M. Korsgaard, amicus curiae.
Ana L. McMonigle, Hartford, Connecticut, for Gary L. Comstock and others, amici curiae.
Fisher & Byrialsen, PLLC, New York City (Jane H. Fisher-Byrialsen of counsel), for Jane H. Fisher-Byrialsen and others, amici curiae.
Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., New York City (Scott A. Chesin of counsel) and Washington, D.C. (Philip S. Goldberg, admitted pro hac vice, and Christopher E. Appel of counsel), for American Veterinary Medical Association and others, amici curiae.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York City (Kathleen Sullivan of counsel) and Austin, Texas (John F. Bash, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for National Association for Biomedical Research, amicus curiae.
Lan Cao, Orange, California, for Edwin Cameron, amicus curiae.
Law Offices of R. Tamara de Silva, LLC, Chicago, Illinois (R. Tamara de Silva, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for Mahinda Deegalle and others, amici curiae.
Pryor Cashman LLP, New York City (Susan P. Witkin of counsel), for Joe Wills and others, amici curiae.
Ana L. McMonigle, Hartford, Connecticut, for Laurence H. Tribe and others, amici curiae.
FisherBroyles LLP, Los Angeles, California (Paul Beard II, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for New York Farm Bureau and others, amici curiae.
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York City (Avishai D. Don of counsel) and Washington, D.C. (Michael A. Johnson and Dirk C. Phillips of counsel), and Association of Zoos & Aquariums, Silver Spring, Maryland (John C. Keeney, Jr., of counsel), for Association of Zoos & Aquariums and others, amici curiae.
Law Offices of David Karopkin, Brooklyn (David Karopkin of counsel), for Randall S. Abate and others, amici curiae.
Amy Trakinski, New York City, for Carol Bakhos and others, amici curiae.
Lan Cao, Orange, California, for Christina Nellist and others, amici curiae.
Richman Law & Policy, Irvington (Jay Shooster of counsel), for Peter Singer and others, amici curiae.
Chaffetz Lindsey LLP, New York City (David M. Lindsey of counsel), for Shannon Minter and another, amici curiae.
Law Office of Calvin D. Weaver, Hammondsport (Calvin D. Weaver of counsel), and Richard L. Cupp Jr., for Richard L. Cupp Jr., amicus curiae.
The Law Offices of Susan P. Witkin, PLLC, New York City (Susan Peckett Witkin of counsel), for Maneesha Deckha, amicus curiae.
Isha Jain, Washington D.C., for K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan, amicus curiae.
Dechert LLP, New York City (Jenna Newmark and Patrick Andriola of counsel), for Andrew Linzey and another, amici curiae.
Fenwick & West LLP, New York City (Marc Greco of counsel), and Animal Legal Defense Fund (Ariel Flint of counsel), for Animal Legal Defense Fund, amicus curiae.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Chief Judge DiFIORE.
For centuries, the common law writ of habeas corpus has safeguarded the liberty rights of human beings by providing a means to secure release from illegal custody. The question before us on this appeal is whether petitioner Nonhuman Rights Project may seek habeas corpus relief on behalf of Happy, an elephant residing at the Bronx Zoo, in order to secure her transfer to an elephant sanctuary. Because the writ of habeas corpus is intended to protect the liberty right of human beings to be free of unlawful confinement, it
has no applicability to Happy, a nonhuman animal who is not a "person" subjected to illegal detention. Thus, 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 for a writ of habeas corpus, and we therefore affirm.
I.
Petitioner Nonhuman Rights Project is a not-for-profit corporation that characterizes its mission as seeking to establish that "at least some nonhuman animals" are "legal persons" entitled to fundamental rights, including "bodily integrity and bodily liberty." In furtherance of this mission, petitioner has commenced myriad proceedings in New York and other states on behalf of chimpanzees and elephants, arguing that these nonhuman animals are legal "persons" being unlawfully confined and, as such, they are entitled to the remedy of habeas corpus. Petitioner's efforts have been unsuccessful, with no court granting such petitions and most of these courts dismissing the proceedings on the basis that nonhuman animals are not legal "persons" with liberty rights protected by the writ of habeas corpus (see Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Lavery, 152 A.D.3d 73, 77, 54 N.Y.S.3d 392 [1st Dept. 2017], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1054, 76 N.Y.S.3d 507, 100 N.E.3d 846 [2018] ; People ex rel. Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Lavery, 124 A.D.3d 148, 150, 998 N.Y.S.2d 248 [3d Dept. 2014], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 902, 2015 WL 5125518 [2015] ; Rowley v. City of New Bedford, 99 Mass. App. Ct. 1104, 159 N.E.3d 1085 [Mass. App. Ct. 2020], review denied 486 Mass. 1115, 165 N.E.3d 159 [2021] ; Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. R.W. Commerford and Sons, Inc., 192 Conn. App. 36, 47–48, 216 A.3d 839, 845–846 [Conn. App. 2019], cert denied 333 Conn. 920, 217 A.3d 635 [2019] ; see also Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Presti, 124 A.D.3d 1334, 1335, 999 N.Y.S.2d 652 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 901, 2015 WL 5125507 [2015] ; Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project Inc. v. Stanley, 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 68434[U], 2014 WL 1318081 [2d Dept. 2014] ).
Undeterred, in 2018, petitioner commenced this habeas proceeding in Supreme Court against respondents James J. Breheny, Director of the Bronx Zoo, and the Wildlife Conservation Society, the organization that operates the Zoo and promotes conservation efforts to preserve wildlife worldwide. Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus "on behalf of Happy," an Asian elephant that petitioner claimed was unlawfully confined at the Zoo in violation of her right to bodily liberty. Happy, who has been in captivity since she was approximately
one year old, has resided at the Bronx Zoo for the last 45 years. Unfortunately, Happy's original elephant companion was euthanized in 2002 due to injuries sustained in an altercation with other resident elephants. Happy was then paired with another companion for several years until that elephant was euthanized after falling ill. The Zoo then announced that it would not be acquiring more elephants and would eventually end its captive elephant program. Thus, Happy and another female elephant, Patty, are the only remaining elephants at the Zoo today and they are housed separately due to their hostile relationship.
In seeking habeas relief, petitioner did not dispute that Happy's residence at the Zoo—which is accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (see generally 7 USC § 2131 )—complies with all applicable federal and state statutes and regulations governing elephant care. Further, although petitioner contended
that Happy does not have sufficient direct social contact with other elephants as a consequence of her current living situation, petitioner did not otherwise allege that Happy is subjected to cruel, neglectful, or abusive treatment. Nevertheless, noting that Happy is an "extraordinarily cognitively complex and autonomous nonhuman" animal, petitioner argued that she should be "recognized as a legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial