Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Breheny
2020 NY Slip Op 07675 (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The common-law writ of habeas corpus is limited to human beings and cannot be sought on behalf of a nonhuman animal. The determination of whether to grant legal personhood to other species is a policy matter for the legislature, not the judiciary.
Facts:
- Happy is an elephant.
- Happy is housed and confined at a facility managed by James J. Breheny.
- The Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc., acting on behalf of Happy, alleged that Happy was being unlawfully detained.
- The Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. sought to have Happy released from this confinement through a writ of habeas corpus.
Procedural Posture:
- The Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Happy in the Supreme Court, Bronx County (a trial-level court).
- Respondents James J. Breheny, et al. filed a motion to dismiss the petition.
- The Supreme Court granted the respondents' motion and dismissed the proceeding.
- The Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc., as petitioner-appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division, First Department.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the common-law writ of habeas corpus, which protects individuals from unlawful confinement, apply to a nonhuman animal such as an elephant?
Opinions:
Majority - Unanimous
No. The common-law writ of habeas corpus does not lie on behalf of Happy, the elephant, because the writ is limited to human beings. Relying on its own precedent in Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v Lavery, the court held that extending legal personhood to nonhuman species would create a 'labyrinth of questions that common-law processes are ill-equipped to answer.' The court concluded that defining the legal status of animals and integrating them into legal frameworks designed for humans is a complex policy decision 'better suited to the legislative process' than to judicial determination.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and solidifies the traditional legal boundary in New York that restricts the fundamental right of habeas corpus to human beings. It demonstrates the judiciary's significant deference to the legislature on the complex issue of animal rights and legal personhood. By categorizing the question as one of policy rather than common-law interpretation, the court signals that future attempts to secure rights for animals through the judicial system are unlikely to succeed without a specific legislative mandate.
