Michigan Court Rules Chimpanzees Lack Human Rights, Remain at DeYoung Family Zoo

Michigan's Court of Appeals has determined that chimpanzees do not possess human rights, thereby allowing the DeYoung Family Zoo in the Upper Peninsula to continue housing seven chimpanzees without legal challenge.

 

The ruling, issued on October 17 by Judges Matthew Ackerman, Brock Swartzle, and Christopher Trebilcock, follows arguments presented by the Nonhuman Rights Project on October 14. The organization contended that chimpanzees should be granted certain liberties akin to human rights.

 

In their decision, the court stated that chimpanzees are animals and, as such, are considered property under existing legal precedents. The judges noted, "No exception exists for 'intelligent' animals, which in any event has no natural stopping point." They further indicated that any change in this legal status would require action from the Michigan Supreme Court.

 

The Nonhuman Rights Project has announced plans to appeal the decision to the state's highest court.

 

In 2023, the organization filed a complaint in the 41st Circuit Court in Menominee County, asserting that the chimpanzees at the DeYoung Family Zoo in Wallace should be recognized as autonomous beings. They sought to have the animals relocated to a sanctuary. The group presented declarations from experts, including renowned primatologist Jane Goodall, emphasizing the complex cognitive abilities and social structures of chimpanzees.

 

Circuit Judge Mary B. Bargland dismissed the complaint, stating that chimpanzees are not human. This led to the appeal heard by the Court of Appeals.

 

During the appellate hearing, attorney Jake Davis of the Nonhuman Rights Project was initially allotted 15 minutes but engaged with the judges for nearly 25 minutes. Judge Swartzle questioned whether autonomy alone should grant a being the right to liberty, highlighting the complexities of integrating non-human entities into the social contract.

 

Swartzle also inquired about the potential implications of granting personhood to animals, asking, "How extraordinary are you willing to go? Elephants, dolphins, chimpanzees, dogs, cats?" Davis suggested that such determinations be made on a case-by-case basis.

 

Expressing disappointment, Davis remarked, "Honestly, the decision... read to me like they did not consider anything said at oral argument." He further argued that the court's position could imply that children and individuals with disabilities might lack legal rights.

 

The DeYoung Family Zoo was unavailable for comment.