An advocacy group argued that an elephant at the Bronx Zoo was being illegally detained, raising ethical questions about the rights of intelligent animals.
Happy, an Asian elephant residing at the Bronx Zoo for over 40 years, will stay there after a New York court decision. The Court of Appeals decided 5-to-2 that Happy is not a person legally and thus not entitled to fundamental human rights.
The decision followed arguments from an animal-rights group demanding Happy’s relocation to a sanctuary. The debate focused on whether habeas corpus, a principle to protect human liberty and contest illegal confinement, should apply to animals like elephants.
While no one disputes the impressive capabilities of elephants, we reject petitioner’s arguments that it is entitled to seek the remedy of habeas corpus on Happy’s behalf,”
stated Janet DiFiore, the chief judge. Habeas corpus is a procedural vehicle intended to secure the liberty rights of human beings who are unlawfully restrained, not nonhuman animals.
However, Judge Rowan D. Wilson dissented, arguing that the court should acknowledge Happy’s right to seek freedom because societal rights reflect societal values. Judge Jenny Rivera, also dissenting, emphasized that Happy is kept in an unnatural setting that prevents her from leading a self-determined life as an autonomous wild elephant.