Michigan’s Court of Appeals ruled that chimps in the state are not considered “persons.” Kamzoom – stock.adobe.com
A Michigan appeals court has ruled that chimpanzees do not qualify as “persons” under state law and therefore do not possess human rights.
The Michigan Court of Appeals said Tuesday that the DeYoung Family Zoo in the Upper Peninsula will not have to defend its confinement of seven chimpanzees, rejecting arguments that the animals should be recognized as autonomous beings.
In a decision dated October 17, Judges Matthew Ackerman, Brock Swartzle, and Christopher Trebilcock affirmed that chimpanzees are legally considered animals — and therefore property — under existing law.
“No exception exists for ‘intelligent’ animals, which in any event has no natural stopping point,” the court’s opinion stated.
The ruling followed oral arguments on October 14 by attorney Jake Davis of the Nonhuman Rights Project, who urged the court to grant chimpanzees certain rights to liberty similar to those of humans. The panel concluded that only the Michigan Supreme Court has the authority to redefine legal personhood to include animals.
The Nonhuman Rights Project announced plans to appeal to the state’s high court. The DeYoung Family Zoo could not be reached for comment.
The ruling means the owners of the DeYoung Family Zoo in the Upper Peninsula will not need to defend the confinement of seven chimpanzees. Google Maps
Background
In 2023, the Nonhuman Rights Project filed a complaint in Menominee County’s 41st Circuit Court on behalf of the seven chimpanzees held at the DeYoung Family Zoo in Wallace, Michigan. The group argued that the animals are autonomous, self-aware beings and should be recognized as legal persons whose confinement must be justified.
The organization presented declarations from several experts, including primatologist Jane Goodall, who emphasized the chimpanzees’ complex cognitive abilities and social relationships. Circuit Judge Mary B. Bargland dismissed the complaint, ruling that chimpanzees are not human. The group then appealed.
The Nonhuman Rights Project intends to appeal to the Supreme Court. limshae – stock.adobe.com
Courtroom Exchange
During last week’s hearing before the Court of Appeals, Davis was initially allotted 15 minutes to present his argument but ended up fielding questions for nearly 25 minutes.
Judge Swartzle challenged the idea that autonomy alone should confer legal rights, noting that human rights stem partly from participation in a social contract.
“If we had five elephants or chimps in this courtroom, I don’t know that they’d all be sitting down as nicely as everyone else in this room,” Swartzle remarked, questioning where the line should be drawn. “How extraordinary are you willing to go? Elephants, dolphins, chimpanzees, dogs, cats?”
The rights group filed declarations from experts such as Jane Goodall. Rixie – stock.adobe.com
Davis responded that the question could be handled case by case, depending on the species and evidence presented.
After the ruling, Davis expressed disappointment with the outcome, saying the judges did not adequately address the group’s arguments.
“Honestly, the decision read to me like they did not consider anything said at oral argument,” he said. “Their position — taken to its logical conclusion — would mean children and the disabled cannot have legal rights.”
