In Michigan, where the NhRP is arguing for the right to liberty of seven chimpanzees held captive in a roadside zoo, we began the year by appealing a trial court judge’s denial of our case because she believes chimpanzees aren’t legal persons under Michigan’s common law of habeas corpus. Our appellate brief argues that the relevant common law habeas corpus statute doesn’t prevent the Circuit Court from allowing the case to proceed, as the judge believed it did. The NhRP’s brief also argues that the Circuit Court violated its own specific duty under the common law to protect autonomy and ensure even-handed application of the law. This duty is separate and distinct from the Michigan courts’ ultimate duty to issue our requested habeas corpus order, i.e. hold a hearing on the merits of our clients’ case and what our petition makes clear is their unlawful imprisonment. We expect oral argument on our Michigan appellate brief to take place sometime in 2025.

We began the year in Hawaii by arguing before Judge Gary W.B. Chang on behalf of Mari and Vaigai–two elephants held in captivity in the Honolulu Zoo.

In late 2023, the City and County of Honolulu, which oversees the zoo, filed a motion asking the First Circuit Court to dismiss the elephants’ case. Judge Chang then ordered oral arguments on the zoo’s motion and our opposition to it. It’s relatively rare for oral arguments to be ordered on these kinds of motions. This hearing thus represented an important opportunity, at a very early stage in the case, to argue in person that the zoo’s motion to dismiss must be denied and that the judge must issue an Order to Show Cause, requiring attorneys for the City and County of Honolulu to come to court to try to justify the imprisonment of Mari and Vaigai.

The 45-minute hearing went well in the sense that Judge Chang asked exactly the kind of probing, thoughtful questions we hope for in all our cases–questions that indicate how seriously courts are now taking the issue of nonhuman animal rights. Adopting a philosophical approach to the issues raised, Judge Chang allotted more time for the hearing than expected, which allowed all the core arguments to be discussed to some degree.

Unfortunately, Judge Chang granted the zoo’s motion to dismiss the case because, similarly to the trial court judge in our Michigan chimpanzee rights case, he believed habeas corpus is limited to humans. As we maintain in our appeal, the writ is not so limited; its protections can and should be extended in order to remedy the unjust imprisonment of beings like Mari and Vaigai. We expect oral argument on our Hawaii appellate brief to take place sometime in 2025.

In any civil rights struggle, resistance to legal change–especially on the part of those who benefit from an unjust status quo–is expected, especially when change is already underway. That’s why we weren’t surprised when, in early 2024, the Utah legislature passed a bill, H.B. 249, that categorically strips the authority of courts to recognize the legal rights or duties of certain nonhuman entities. Nonhuman entities impacted by the Utah law include nonhuman animals, land, bodies of water, and artificial intelligence. Interestingly, corporations aren’t explicitly listed in the statute.

According to the author of the bill, the purpose was to “define personhood as a human being.” He also cited the progress made by the NhRP in Happy the elephant’s case in New York as one reason for the bill’s introduction.

Upon learning of the bill, we immediately encouraged our Utah supporters to contact their state senators to urge them to oppose it. Several local groups, including those fighting for Utah’s Great Salt Lake to be recognized as a legal person, did the same. The bill passed anyway. We subsequently determined it was important for us to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this anti-rights law, which sets a dangerous and unconstitutional precedent that the legislature can take away the ability of courts to exercise independent judgment to protect legal rights, including civil liberties. In July of 2024, we notified the State of Utah of our intent to sue and spent the following months preparing to file suit in early 2025. We’re asking Utah’s Third Judicial District Court to strike down the law because it violates constitutional separation of powers.