State of New York OPINION Court of Appeals This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. No. 52 In the Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc., &c., Appellant, v. James J. Breheny, &c., et al., Respondents. Monica L. Miller, for appellant. Kenneth A. Manning, for respondents. Martha C. Nussbaum; Protect the Harvest et al.; John Berkman et al.; Christine M. Korsgaard; Gary L. Comstock et al.; Jane H. Fisher-Byrialsen et al.; American Veterinary Medical Association et al.; National Association for Biomedical Research; Edwin Cameron; Mahinda Deegalle et al.; Joe Wills et al.; Laurence H. Tribe et al.; New York Farm Bureau et al.; Association of Zoos & Aquariums et al.; Randall S. Abate et al.; Carol Bakhos et al.; Christina Nellist et al.; Peter Singer et al.; Shannon Minter et al.; Richard L. Cupp, Jr.; Maneesha Deckha; K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan; Andrew Linzey et al.; Animal Legal Defense Fund, amici curiae. DiFIORE, Chief Judge: 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 -1- -2- No. 52 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 AD3d 73, 77 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 31 NY3d 1054 [2018]; People ex rel. Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v Lavery, 124 AD3d 148, 150 [3d Dept 2014], lv denied 26 NY3d 902 [2015]; Rowley v City of New Bedford, 99 Mass App Ct 1104, 159 NE3d 1085 [Mass App Ct 2020], review denied 486 Mass 1115, 165 NE3d 159 [2021]; Nonhuman Rights …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals