A Michigan justice opened the door to “human rights” for chimpanzees, putting core legal lines at risk.
Story Highlights
- Animal-rights lawyers tried to grant habeas corpus to seven chimpanzees in a Michigan zoo.
- Michigan’s courts rejected the claim, ruling chimpanzees are not legal “persons”.
- A Michigan Supreme Court justice urged rethinking common law, echoing arguments for animal “bodily autonomy”.
- New York courts have also ruled chimpanzees are not “persons” under habeas corpus.
Michigan Case Tested Human-Only Habeas Tradition
The Nonhuman Rights Project filed a habeas petition for seven chimpanzees at the DeYoung Family Zoo in Wallace, Michigan. The group asked a court to recognize a right to bodily liberty and send the chimpanzees to a sanctuary. The filing marked another push to treat some animals as legal persons. Michigan’s Court of Appeals summarized the case history and the request for relief. The court later addressed the core claim about personhood and liberty under habeas.
Michigan’s Court of Appeals issued a published decision in October 2025. The panel held chimpanzees are not “persons” eligible for habeas relief. The court affirmed denial of the petition and kept the human-centered boundary on the writ. The opinion aligned with many other courts that treat animals as property, not rights-bearers, under current law. The ruling closed the door at the intermediate level for the DeYoung chimpanzees in this round.
State High Court Declined Review But A Justice Dissented
In 2026, the Michigan Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, leaving the appellate ruling intact. The Nonhuman Rights Project then filed for reconsideration. Justice Elizabeth Welch dissented from the denial. She wrote that the case raises questions about bodily autonomy and whether the law should expand to protect other living beings. Her dissent urged the court to grant leave and consider the common-law foundation more broadly.
Justice Welch also questioned using centuries-old sources to fix today’s common law. Her view echoed the advocacy group’s claim that courts can evolve doctrine without a new statute. Supporters argued modern science about chimp cognition should matter. Opponents replied that reshaping personhood is a policy choice for lawmakers, not judges. The majority’s refusal to review left the Court of Appeals personhood holding in place for Michigan.
National Pattern: Courts Say Animals Are Not Persons
New York’s courts faced similar petitions for chimpanzees named Tommy and Kiko. The courts ruled that chimpanzees are not persons entitled to habeas relief. Judges noted that animals are treated as property under law. They warned that expanding rights could upend many settled human activities tied to animal ownership and use. Those New York outcomes shaped later debates and are often cited by other courts wrestling with these claims.
Across the country, courts have mostly refused to expand personhood through common law in animal cases. Michigan’s appellate decision follows that trend. Advocates continue to seek a court-made path to liberty rights for certain animals. Critics say that would weaken democratic control and blur human rights. They argue any change to personhood belongs in legislatures, where voters can weigh costs to families, hunters, farmers, medical research, and community life.
Why This Matters To Constitutional Conservatives
Court-driven personhood expansions risk moving power from voters to judges. Habeas corpus protects people from unlawful jailing. Stretching it to animals invites activists to use courts to rewrite law without elections. That could disrupt property rights, hunting traditions, farming, and research that save human lives. Michigan’s refusal to grant habeas to chimpanzees kept the line clear. The dissent shows the push will continue, so lawmakers and citizens should stay alert to protect human rights and local authority.
Sources:
nhrpannualreport.com, nonhumanrights.org, bridgemi.com
