The Nonhuman Rights Project continues to fight for freedom and sanctuary for Happy and Patty, two elephants who are confined in the Bronx Zoo. Our efforts early next year will focus on new actions New York residents can take to help, followed by suggested actions for all our supporters. You can help right now by sending a message to the Director of the Bronx Zoo, demanding transparency about Happy and Patty’s health and the release of the elephants’ veterinary records.
Today marks a significant anniversary in the fight for nonhuman animal rights. In response to a Nonhuman Rights Project petition for habeas corpus alleging that the Bronx Zoo was unlawfully imprisoning Happy the elephant, Justice Tracey A. Bannister of the Orleans County Supreme Court held a hearing in 2018 in which the Bronx Zoo had to respond to the NhRP’s allegations and explain to the court why it thought its confinement of Happy was lawful. It was the first time in history a court held such a hearing on behalf of an elephant. The act was simultaneously modest on the part of the judge and profoundly important. Let me explain why.
When the NhRP (or anyone) files a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, we are first asking the court to take an initial step: to issue an order requiring the other side to come to court and justify the detention. Only if the court issues that order—only if it agrees to hear the case at all—does the proceeding move to the next stage where both sides present evidence and arguments. Then, if the court determines someone is being unlawfully held, it issues a final order to protect that individual’s liberty.
This first act is the essential function of courts: to consider evidence and arguments from two sides and then determine whether one party’s violation of the law injured the other. That’s what makes it a modest request on our part. This essential function of the courts takes on special importance when the legal violation at issue involves an individual’s life and liberty.
Yet, when it comes to nonhuman animals, this basic principle has been turned upside down. Courts routinely dismiss claims of severe and unlawful injuries experienced by animals, treating them like things instead of beings. When courts immediately dismiss claims like this, they’re signaling—and sometimes outright saying—that claims of illegal harm brought on behalf of a nonhuman animal don’t matter to the courts no matter how great the harm. This isn’t justice. It’s bias that’s baked into the system.
When Justice Bannister heard arguments from the NhRP and the Bronx Zoo as to whether Happy could be entitled to the right to liberty, she put aside, however fleetingly, the systemic bias against animals that prevents animals’ interests from ever making it to court. Ultimately, the judge believed she had to transfer the case to the Bronx (we’d initially determined it was in our client’s interest to begin our litigation in Orleans County, not the Bronx). But Justice Bannister’s order requiring the Bronx Zoo to respond to the NhRP’s allegations opened Happy’s case up for examination by the courts, including a historic series of hearings presided over by Bronx Supreme Court Justice Alison Y. Tuitt. After carefully examining the evidence and arguments from both sides, Justice Tuitt found the NhRP’s arguments “extremely persuasive” and recognized Happy as “an intelligent, autonomous being who should be treated with respect and dignity,” though she felt bound by adverse appellate precedent in the state to rule against Happy (Happy’s case proceeded to the highest court in New York—the New York Court of Appeals—where it attracted the support of now-Chief Judge Rowan Wilson and Judge Jenny Rivera who wrote historic dissents in support of animal rights).
Now, our petition for habeas corpus brought on behalf of the elephants confined by the Pittsburgh Zoo is at the same stage of litigation as Happy’s was then. The petition includes extensive evidence from the NhRP that elephants are autonomous beings who call each other by names, recognize themselves in mirrors, and remember family members for decades. The petition also alleges that the elephants live in an impoverished environment, exhibit stereotypic behavior indicating brain damage, and have been forcibly separated from family members—all in violation of their liberty. The question now pending before the Pennsylvania courts is not whether to immediately free the elephants, but whether to simply order the zoo to respond to the allegations. From there, the court can make a determination as to whether the elephants’ confinement at the zoo is unlawful and then issue an appropriate remedy such as ordering the elephants to be released to a sanctuary.
Justice Bannister’s willingness to issue that order—and Justice Tuitt’s powerful findings after examining the evidence—demonstrate that the legal system’s reflexive dismissal of nonhuman animals is not inevitable. Each time a judge agrees to examine these cases rather than dismiss them outright, they affirm a basic principle: serious allegations of unlawful harm deserve serious consideration, including when the harm is done to a nonhuman being. The first step toward justice is getting the justice system to listen at all.
Send a message to the Director of the Bronx Zoo, demanding transparency about Happy and Patty’s health and the release of the elephants’ veterinary records.
