Should Animals Have Legal Rights?

Happy, a 50-year-old Asian elephant, has lived at the Bronx Zoo in New York City since 1977. For a long time, her friend, Grumpy, kept her company. But Grumpy died in 2002, and Happy doesn’t get along with the other elephants. So for almost two decades now, she’s lived in a 1-acre enclosure by herself.

The zoo maintains that Happy is well cared for in her current home. But this arrangement is not how elephants live in the wild, and as a result, Happy has become the center of a fierce legal battle. Elephants are highly social and intelligent, so some animal rights advocates argue that Happy belongs in a sanctuary, where she’d have companions and more space to roam. An animal rights lawyer who claims to represent Happy is asking the court to issue a writ of habeas corpus, a legal course of action that under U.S. law can be used to object to the wrongful imprisonment of a person (see “Habeas Corpus, Explained,” below).

The problem: Animals don’t have the same legal rights as humans. In order to use habeas corpus to protect Happy, lawyers must convince a judge that the elephant should legally be considered a person, rather than someone’s property.

Happy is not the only animal whose rights are being fought over in court. An advocacy group called the Nonhuman Rights Project, which filed Happy’s lawsuit, has also filed suits in recent years on behalf of four captive chimpanzees in New York and three elephants in a traveling circus in Connecticut. They lost those cases. But the fact that judges seriously considered the matter is something that probably wouldn’t have happened a few decades ago, experts say. And the number of these personhood cases is increasing in the U.S., according to Kristen Stilt, faculty director of the Harvard Animal Law & Policy program, who sees the trend as necessary.

“We’re at the point where high cognitive animals with a very clear sense of their past, present, and future, along with familial units [such as elephants, primates, whales, and octopuses], need not be treated as mere things,” she argues.

Happy, a 50-year-old Asian elephant, has lived at the Bronx Zoo in New York City since 1977. For a long time, her friend, Grumpy, kept her company. But Grumpy died in 2002, and Happy doesn’t get along with the other elephants. So for almost two decades now, she’s lived in a 1-acre enclosure by herself.

The zoo maintains that Happy is well cared for in her current home. But this setup is not how elephants live in the wild. As a result, Happy has become the center of a fierce legal battle. Elephants are highly social and intelligent. That’s why some animal rights advocates argue that Happy belongs in a sanctuary, where she’d have companions and more space to roam. An animal rights lawyer who claims to represent Happy is asking a court to issue a writ of habeas corpus. Under U.S. law, this legal course of action can be used to object to the wrongful imprisonment of a person (see “Habeas Corpus, Explained,” below).

The problem: Animals don’t have the same legal rights as humans. In order to use habeas corpus to protect Happy, lawyers must convince a judge that the elephant should legally be considered a person, rather than someone’s property.

Happy is not the only animal whose rights are being fought over in court. An advocacy group called the Nonhuman Rights Project filed Happy’s lawsuit. The group has also filed suits in recent years on behalf of four captive chimpanzees in New York and three elephants in a traveling circus in Connecticut. They lost those cases. But the fact that judges seriously considered the matter is something that probably wouldn’t have happened a few decades ago, experts say. And the number of these personhood cases is increasing in the U.S., according to Kristen Stilt, faculty director of the Harvard Animal Law & Policy program, who sees the trend as necessary.

“We’re at the point where high cognitive animals with a very clear sense of their past, present, and future, along with familial units [such as elephants, primates, whales, and octopuses], need not be treated as mere things,” she argues.

The idea of declaring an animal a legal person isn’t as far-fetched as you might think. Corporations and ships have legal personhood, granting them rights in court. And some countries, such as Colombia and New Zealand, have extended legal personhood to rivers and forests to give their governments more power to protect the environment.

A few nations, in fact, have granted legal rights to some animals. In 2016, for example, a judge in Argentina ruled that a chimpanzee named Cecilia was a “nonhuman legal person” with “inherent rights,” ordering that she be transferred from a zoo to a sanctuary. The next year, Colombia’s Supreme Court ruled that an Andean bear named Chucho was a nonhuman person that should be taken to a wildlife reserve, although the decision was later overturned.

Some countries have gone even further: In 2019, a high court in India recognized all animals as legal entities. And last year, the Islamabad High Court in Pakistan ruled that animals are entitled to protection under the country’s constitution.

The idea of declaring an animal a legal person isn’t as unlikely as you might think. Corporations and ships have legal personhood, granting them rights in court. And some countries, such as Colombia and New Zealand, have extended legal personhood to rivers and forests. That’s given their governments more power to protect the environment.

A few nations, in fact, have granted legal rights to some animals. In 2016, for example, a judge in Argentina ruled that a chimpanzee named Cecilia was a “nonhuman legal person” with “inherent rights.” The judge ordered that she be transferred from a zoo to a sanctuary. The next year, Colombia’s Supreme Court ruled that an Andean bear named Chucho was a nonhuman person. It ordered that he be taken to a wildlife reserve. But the decision was later overturned.

Some countries have gone beyond that. In 2019, a high court in India recognized all animals as legal entities. And last year, the Islamabad High Court in Pakistan ruled that animals are entitled to protection under the country’s constitution.

“Do the animals have legal rights? The answer to this question, without any hesitation, is in the affirmative,” Chief Justice Athar Minallah wrote in the Islamabad High Court ruling. “It is a right of each animal . . . to live in an environment that meets [its] behavior, social, and physiological needs.”

But even those who argue in favor of animal personhood caution that it doesn’t necessarily mean all creatures should automatically be granted the same rights as humans. These legal cases generally focus on individual animals, not an entire species. And the lawsuits that have made it to court so far tend to concern an animal’s right to bodily liberty or bodily integrity (the rights not to be held in a cage or experimented on, for example).

“This is not an all-or-nothing thing. It’s not like ‘Oh, [animals] have rights’ and now all of the sudden we have to educate them and give them the right to vote,” Stilt says. “It’s another nuance of the discussion, which is, well, what should they have? If they should have access to anything, what should it be?”

“Do the animals have legal rights? The answer to this question, without any hesitation, is in the affirmative,” Chief Justice Athar Minallah wrote in the Islamabad High Court ruling. “It is a right of each animal . . . to live in an environment that meets [its] behavior, social, and physiological needs.”

But even those who argue in favor of animal personhood are cautious. They say that all creatures shouldn’t automatically be granted the same rights as humans. These legal cases generally focus on individual animals, not an entire species. And the lawsuits that have made it to court so far tend to concern an animal’s right to bodily liberty or bodily integrity. That means their rights not to be held in a cage or experimented on.

“This is not an all-or-nothing thing. It’s not like ‘Oh, [animals] have rights’ and now all of the sudden we have to educate them and give them the right to vote,” Stilt says. “It’s another nuance of the discussion, which is, well, what should they have? If they should have access to anything, what should it be?”

Critics of the movement have concerns about where to draw the line when it comes to animal rights. They worry that granting a handful of individual animals personhood opens the door to a flood of lawsuits that could change the way we live. Some apes are used for medical research that benefits humans, for example, so granting them personhood could slow the development of life-saving medicines or vaccines.

And if we do grant legal personhood to certain creatures, such as primates and elephants, what other species would be next? Some farmers have expressed concern that the pigs and cows they’re raising would suddenly be allowed to go free. Even our beloved family dogs are social and intelligent, Stilt points out. Should they be granted personhood?

In 2018, a horse named Justice made headlines for “suing” a woman who had brutally neglected him when a group called the Animal Legal Defense Fund took his case to court. Although the case was dismissed, it has since been appealed. But agricultural groups have objected to the idea that a horse could sue a human.

Critics of the movement have concerns about where to draw the line when it comes to animal rights. They worry that granting a handful of individual animals personhood opens the door to a flood of lawsuits that could change the way we live. For example, some apes are used for medical research that benefits humans. Granting them personhood could slow the development of life-saving medicines or vaccines.

And if we do grant legal personhood to certain creatures, such as primates and elephants, what other species would be next? Some farmers have expressed concern that the pigs and cows they’re raising would suddenly be allowed to go free. Even our beloved family dogs are social and intelligent, Stilt points out. Should they be granted personhood?

In 2018, a horse named Justice made headlines for “suing” a woman who had brutally neglected him. A group called the Animal Legal Defense Fund took his case to court. Although the case was dismissed, it has since been appealed. But agricultural groups have objected to the idea that a horse could sue a human.

“Oregon law already has severe consequences for those who abuse and neglect animals,” the Oregon Farm Bureau said in a statement. “This case is simply an effort by animal rights activists to pull the ultimate thread in a longstanding effort to unravel and halt livestock operations in Oregon.”

A New York appeals court considering Happy’s fate in December agreed that there would likely be consequences if it gave an animal legal rights.

“A judicial determination that species other than Homo sapiens are ‘persons’ . . .  and therefore have certain rights, would lead to a labyrinth of questions that common-law processes are ill-equipped to answer,” said the ruling, which went in favor of the zoo. This issue, the court said, was a matter for the legislative process. The ruling has been appealed to New York’s highest court.

“Oregon law already has severe consequences for those who abuse and neglect animals,” the Oregon Farm Bureau said in a statement. “This case is simply an effort by animal rights activists to pull the ultimate thread in a longstanding effort to unravel and halt livestock operations in Oregon.”

A New York appeals court considering Happy’s fate in December agreed that there would likely be consequences if it gave an animal legal rights.

“A judicial determination that species other than Homo sapiens are ‘persons’ . . . and therefore have certain rights, would lead to a labyrinth of questions that common-law processes are ill-equipped to answer,” said the ruling, which went in favor of the zoo. This issue, the court said, was a matter for the legislative process. The ruling has been appealed to New York’s highest court.

Although U.S. courts may be unlikely to grant animals personhood right now, that could change in the future, experts say. Americans have grown increasingly concerned about animal welfare in recent years. A 2015 Gallup poll found that almost a third of Americans believe animals should be given the same rights as humans, up from 25 percent from the last poll in 2008. And as public opinion changes, animals could start winning more personhood cases, according to Stilt.

“I think that it’s going to depend not on legal arguments, but rather on social norms and values,” she says. “A judge will often have two good arguments before her. Which one she chooses may have a lot to do with where society is on this issue.”

U.S. courts may be unlikely to grant animals personhood right now. But that could change in the future, experts say. Americans have grown increasingly concerned about animal welfare in recent years. A 2015 Gallup poll found that almost a third of Americans believe animals should be given the same rights as humans, up from 25 percent from the last poll in 2008. And as public opinion changes, animals could start winning more personhood cases, according to Stilt.

“I think that it’s going to depend not on legal arguments, but rather on social norms and values,” she says. “A judge will often have two good arguments before her. Which one she chooses may have a lot to do with where society is on this issue.”