Posted on 10/30/2025 7:49:46 AM PDT by Red Badger
Chimpanzees are not “persons” capable of being “imprisoned” for purposes of habeas corpus.
It’s not every day a court is asked whether chimpanzees have constitutional rights just like people do, but that was the novel question before a three-judge panel of the Michigan state court of appeals earlier this month.
The answer, of course, was no. Chimpanzees are not “persons” in the eyes of the law, the appellate court held, denying the petition for habeas corpus filed on behalf of seven chimps by the Nonhuman Rights Project, an advocacy group dedicated to securing legal rights for “nonhuman animals.”
In fact, this wasn’t the first time the organization tried to get primates out of prison, i.e., the zoo. Professor Jacobson wrote about a similar claim they filed in New York state over ten years ago here. They lost, for the same obvious reason: chimpanzees aren’t “persons” entitled to habeas corpus relief for false imprisonment.
That didn’t stop the animal rights zealots from trying again, this time seeking to free the chimps held captive at the roadside DeYoung Family Zoo in Michigan. In December 2023, the Michigan circuit court summarily denied their request without holding a hearing, presumably because it didn’t need to. Again, the alleged “prisoner” chimpanzees were not “persons” eligible for habeas relief, Judge Mary Barglind stated on the court’s order form. The Nonhuman Rights Project appealed.
Writing on behalf of the appellate court, Judge Matthew Ackerman traces the origins of the habeas remedy back to English common law to affirm the trial court’s decision.
Chimpanzees are animals, and the law regards animals as property, the judge concluded—no doubt to the chagrin of the Nonhuman Rights Project.
Man’s dominion over beast is rooted in the creation narrative, the esteemed jurist Sir William Blackstone explained over 200 years ago:
In the beginning of the world, we are informed by holy writ, the all-bountiful Creator gave to man ‘dominion over all the earth; and over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.’ . . . The earth, therefore, and all things therein, are the general property of all mankind, exclusive of other beings, from the immediate gift of the Creator.
“No exception exists for ‘intelligent’ animals, which in any event has no natural stopping point,” Judge Ackerman added.
This is not the animals-are-people-too result the Nonhuman Rights Project was hoping for, and they say they will appeal the decision to the Michigan Supreme Court.
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
James Cole: This is a place for crazy people. I’m not crazy.
Dr. Owen Fletcher: We don’t use the term “crazy,” Mr. Cole.
James Cole: Well, you’ve got some real nuts here.
12 Monkeys
Good idea, the court really slipped up there.
Don't worry they can still vote by mail.
Personally, I'm waiting impatiently for a pretext for a "Habeas Porpoise" joke.
Pet "parents"?
Expand that concept to the extreme and consider what might become of such a thing.
Send them a bill for court costs. All court costs...
People already refer to their cats and dogs as their ‘fur babies’.................
Sean “Diddy” Combs was popped for transporting young gulls across staid lions for immortal porpoises.
The set up is too much work, sorry sorry sorry!
Listen, these days, if this particular lunatic group isn’t being violent in advocating their agenda, I’m game to just let them have fun. Although I’d perceived that the fad of wanting to give human rights to animals had subsided, so I was surprised to see this
“Animal rights” was a “thing” for the left in the 1960s and 1970s.
I expected it would turn into a legal nightmare at some point.
At this point the “progressives” have failed to subvert this element of the legal system.
Missed an opportunity to declare that HCorpeus is ONLY for US citizens. Oooh, imagine how the commie trash would react if someone turned around and said HC cannot be applied to illegals.
Next thing you know they won’t be able to vote either ...
They can still run for political office, right?
Blond apes?
There must be an orangutan somewhere in their family tree.
Trying to use activist judges to make law by judicial fiat because they cannot get democratically elected law makers to pass the laws they want.
I thought this was going to be The Bee ....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.