On Wednesday, the New York Court of Appeals heard arguments from both sides for Happy’s release from the zoo. The court will likely issue a ruling within the next four to six weeks, representatives from the NhRP and the Bronx Zoo told CNN.
The NhRP’s legal argument revolves around the idea of habeas corpus, which protects against unlawful imprisonment. They argue that at the Bronx Zoo, Happy is being held in the equivalent of solitary confinement, which they say is especially cruel given that elephants are highly social creatures that roam huge swaths of territory at the wild state.
“It’s the nature of the detention and the nature of the case” that makes Happy’s terms a violation of habeas corpus, NhRP attorney Monica Miller told CNN.
Happy, born in the wild in 1971, is one of two Asian elephants currently kept at the zoo, which are kept in separate but adjacent enclosures and are able to smell, see and touch each other with their trunks. through the fence. The organization is pushing for Happy to be moved to an elephant sanctuary, where they say she would have more space, as she would in the wild, and have social contact with other elephants.
“While carrying [elephants] captive and confined prevents them from engaging in normal, self-reliant behavior and can lead to the development of arthritis, osteoarthritis, osteomyelitis, boredom and stereotypical behaviors,” elephant researcher Joyce Poole said in the organization petition. , aggressive, catatonic and fails to thrive.”
The NhRP requested that Happy be released to either the Tennessee Elephant Sanctuary or the Performing Animal Welfare Society Sanctuary in California. Neither group is affiliated with the NhRP.
Additionally, Happy and the other animals on whose behalf the NhRP sued, did not seek legal representation from the NhRP, the Bronx Zoo said. And she doesn’t need it.
And the case also has wider legal implications, according to the zoo. Habeas corpus has never been applied to nonhuman animals in New York, the zoo says, and that would open the door to legal chaos and add greater strain to the state’s legal systems.
“Changing this most fundamental legal concept has implications not only for zoos, but also for animal owners, farmers, university and hospital researchers and, most importantly, every human being who might ask for or need help. ‘access the justice system,’ the zoo wrote. .
But Miller, one of NhRP’s lawyers, says the group is pushing for a much narrower decision. Currently, she says, the legal world has “no room for the distinction between the elephant and the caterpillar. Right now, Happy has the same rights as an ant.”
Miller said Happy “looks more like a human for the purposes of the right to bodily liberty,” noting that the ruling wouldn’t necessarily open the floodgates for other animals like dogs or cattle to get human rights. According to the NhRP, elephants “share many complex cognitive abilities with humans, such as self-awareness, empathy, death awareness, intentional communication, learning, memory, and categorization abilities” , which makes them particularly worthy of the right to habeas corpus. .
The case also relies on the legal history of habeas corpus. Historically, habeas corpus was used to free slaves in England and the United States, even at a time when slaves did not have legal personality. Thus, according to the organization, there is precedent for using habeas corpus to grant freedom to those without legal personality, such as elephants.
“At the Bronx Zoo, we are focused on what is best for Happy, not in general terms, but as an individual with a unique and distinct personality,” the zoo said in its statement.
