The saying goes, “the definition of insanity is repeating the same action while expecting different results.” One anti-hunting group has apparently never learned that lesson.
Animal rights activists seeking to rewrite centuries of law by declaring animals “legal persons” suffered yet another courtroom defeat after the Michigan Supreme Court declined to hear the Nonhuman Rights Project’s latest habeas corpus appeal. The decision leaves intact a lower court ruling that seven chimpanzees being cared for at the DeYoung Family Zoo are not, in fact, “persons” entitled to seek habeas relief and marks another setback for an anti-hunting litigation campaign that has repeatedly failed in courts across the country.
The ruling against NhRP is significant because it reinforces an increasingly consistent judicial message. Courts continue to reject NhRP’s efforts to use habeas corpus — a legal remedy designed to protect the liberty of human beings — to create an entirely new category of legal rights for animals. Yet despite a growing list of losses, NhRP continues filing substantially similar lawsuits in jurisdictions nationwide, hoping one court will ultimately establish the precedent others have declined to recognize.
Michigan Joins a Growing List of Courts
The Michigan Court of Appeals previously ruled that the chimpanzees could not pursue habeas corpus because animals are not recognized as legal persons under longstanding common law. The court also rejected NhRP’s argument that qualities such as intelligence or autonomy should determine legal personhood, cautioning there would be “no natural stopping point” if courts adopted that approach.
Rather than reconsidering that reasoning, the Michigan Supreme Court simply declined to review the case, leaving the earlier appellate decision in place. One justice dissented, suggesting the court should revisit the common law in light of scientific understanding of animal cognition, but that view failed to persuade a majority.
The result preserves the longstanding legal distinction between human rights protected through habeas corpus and questions of animal welfare, which remain matters for legislatures and existing statutory law.
Michigan is only the latest stop in a years-long litigation campaign. NhRP has repeatedly advanced nearly identical legal theories in state courts around the country, asking judges to recognize certain animals as legal persons entitled to pursue habeas corpus relief. Those efforts have consistently failed, as they should.
In 2022, New York’s highest court rejected the organization’s widely publicized effort to obtain legal personhood for “Happy,” a Bronx Zoo elephant. Judge Jenny Rivera questioned the NhRP attorneys, asking, “If Happy is a person, does that mean that I couldn’t keep a dog? I mean, dogs can memorize words.” Judge Rivera’s comments foreshadowed the similar statements made by the Michigan judges.
The Colorado Supreme Court similarly refused to recognize legal personhood for five elephants at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo in 2025. Pennsylvania courts also rejected an attempt earlier this year by NhRP to obtain habeas relief on behalf of Pittsburgh Zoo elephants.
Despite those numerous defeats, the anti-hunting organization continues pursuing similar lawsuits across multiple jurisdictions as part of a long-term litigation strategy aimed at reshaping legal doctrine through the courts rather than through legislatures. Its own public filings and ongoing cases make clear that Michigan is unlikely to be the final venue in that effort.
These cases are not isolated disputes involving individual animals, however. They represent a broader campaign to incrementally expand legal personhood through strategic litigation after repeated judicial setbacks.
Why the Cases Matter
Animal activists and NhRP supporters often characterize these lawsuits as narrow disputes involving captive animals, suggesting they are under duress, harmed by captivity and inadequately cared for. But the legal questions they raise are far broader. After all, Happy, the Bronx Zoo elephant, lived to be a well-fed 53-year-old elephant in the care of zookeepers, that was regularly bathed and watched over. Happy even had a social life with visitors and other elephants.
Habeas corpus is one of the oldest protections in American law, providing a legal mechanism for individuals to challenge unlawful government detention. Extending that doctrine to animals would fundamentally alter long-established principles governing legal personhood and invite courts to draw increasingly subjective lines based on intelligence, cognition or autonomy.
Michigan’s Supreme Court recognized exactly that concern, observing there is no clear limiting principle once courts abandon the traditional understanding of legal personhood. That reasoning mirrors conclusions reached by the several courts in other jurisdictions that have also declined invitations to redefine centuries of common law.
Never-Ending Litigation
Michigan’s decision almost certainly will not end NhRP’s litigation campaign. Their modus operandi is to fundraise among an animal activist support base, file costly legal challenges that force zoos and other animal care facilities to spend money fighting the ridiculous lawsuits and then repeat. The organization has made clear it intends to continue pursuing similar lawsuits, seeking the first court willing to recognize legal personhood for animals through habeas corpus. That persistence reflects a broader strategy of using serial litigation to establish precedent one case at a time, despite repeated courtroom defeats.
If a court ever decided that one of the animals targeted by NhRP did indeed possess personhood rights, the floodgate would open for future lawsuits against other zoos. Animal rights groups could then sue dairy cow or meat processing operations, pig farms or chicken or pheasant preserves. In the case of Happy, the New York Farm Bureau submitted an amicus brief in favor of the Bronx Zoo warning that a ruling in NhRP’s favor could be disastrous: “Worse, if any of those habeas petitions succeed in securing the release or transfer of livestock … the downstream effects also would be serious.”
Thankfully, the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision reinforces that questions of legal personhood are matters for lawmakers, not judges expanding centuries-old legal doctrines beyond their historical purpose. Yet the latest loss is unlikely to end the effort.
As long as activist organizations continue using strategic litigation to pursue policy objectives they have been unable to secure elsewhere, courts can expect to see more of these cases — and more opportunities to reaffirm the longstanding legal principles that have repeatedly prevailed.
Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.