A Michigan appellate court has ruled that chimpanzees do not qualify as “human beings” with human rights.
This decision indicates that the owners of the DeYoung Family Zoo in the Upper Peninsula will not need to justify the confinement of their seven chimpanzees.
The ruling, issued on October 17 by Judges Matthew Ackerman, Brock Swartzle, and Christopher Trebilcock, followed arguments from the Non-Human Rights Project, which contended that the court should consider granting chimpanzees some rights similar to those of humans.
The court stated that chimpanzees are classified as animals and should be treated as property rather than individuals with rights. Their ruling emphasized that there are no exceptions for ‘intelligent’ animals, and it would be difficult to determine a clear boundary.
The Michigan Supreme Court will ultimately need to address whether certain animals should be regarded as human-like, according to the justices.
The Non-Human Rights Project plans to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.
The zoo had not provided any comments regarding the situation.
Background
Earlier in 2023, the Non-Human Rights Project filed a case in Menominee County’s 41st Circuit Court, claiming that the chimpanzees at the DeYoung Family Zoo should be recognized as autonomous beings and should be released into sanctuaries.
Advocacy groups argued that chimpanzees possess advanced cognitive abilities and complex social structures, including statements from experts such as Jane Goodall, who was well-known in the field.
However, Circuit Judge Mary B. Berglund dismissed the lawsuit, declaring that chimpanzees are not humans, prompting an appeal from the Non-Human Rights Project.
Public Hearing
During the recent Court of Appeals session, Jake Davis, an attorney representing the Non-Human Rights Project, was initially allocated 15 minutes but ended up speaking for almost 25 minutes.
Swarzle raised questions about whether the capability of organisms to act independently was sufficient to warrant the right to freedom. He remarked on how humans often enter into a “social contract,” trading certain freedoms for rights. It was a bit light-hearted when he speculated about how well five elephants or chimpanzees would behave in the courtroom.
Swartzle also inquired about the challenges of designating chimpanzees as humans, questioning which animals would then qualify. “How special do you want to go? Elephants, dolphins, chimpanzees, dogs, cats?” he wondered. Attorney Davis replied that these decisions should be addressed on a case-by-case or species-by-species basis.
Davis expressed his dissatisfaction with the ruling.
“Honestly, this decision… felt like it overlooked a lot of what was discussed during oral arguments,” he noted. “Their stance seems to imply that children and individuals with disabilities would also lack legal rights.”
