Steven M. Wise's Blog

Even if you don’t consider yourself a writer, you have a lot of power to help nonhuman animals through the written word by drawing on your own insight, emotion, and personal experience. One important way to do this is through op-eds.

Op-eds are opinion columns submitted to a newspaper or other publication that allow you to share your perspective on an issue of importance with that publication’s audience. Anyone can write and submit an op-ed. Publications appreciate op-eds that offer a new viewpoint or perspective on a topic that will be of interest to their readers.  

Opinion columns serve as an important tool to highlight news issues that might otherwise receive less media attention. As a supporter of the NhRP, you can use writing to share your unique perspective on the problems faced by nonhuman animals and underscore recognition of animal rights as a solution.

What to include in an op-ed

If you’ve never written and submitted an op-ed, it may initially sound daunting. However, if you follow some simple guidelines, the process isn’t as difficult as you may think.  Your opinion matters, and sharing your opinion through an op-ed can help change hearts and minds.

First, determine a newsworthy topic you want to share your opinion on.  It should be a topic you genuinely care about. Although you don’t necessarily need to be a subject matter expert, it helps to have a basic understanding of your issue, including knowing the pros and cons, or both sides of the argument.  For example, maybe you want to share your opinion about elephants used in entertainment and how they deserve the right to live freely.  

Think about what makes your topic relevant to your reader. Consider timeliness and locale. Perhaps an important date is approaching or maybe something is happening locally the public should be aware of. Your reader may be interested in the topic of elephants used in entertainment because a traveling animal act is coming to your city. Alternatively, maybe elephants are brought to your state annually and you’re calling for your state legislature to address the problem with a new bill, a topic that affects your entire state. Importantly, your reader should somehow be impacted or have a sense that this topic is relevant to them.

Once you have decided on your topic, state your position. The reader should clearly understand what the problem is and where you stand on the issue. Tell them which side of the argument you’re taking. Doing so orients your reader and prepares them to hear your argument. For example, your thesis may be that traveling animal acts aren’t appropriate for elephants because elephants shouldn’t be kept alone and travel is stressful for them.

If your personal or professional experience is relevant to the argument you’re making, consider integrating it into your op-ed. This helps lend credibility to your argument and shows why your reader should consider your position. For example, you might be an elementary school educator whose students have wondered whether elephants enjoy performing tricks, or a business owner who’s refused to exploit animals as part of your business.  

After you’ve stated your position, it’s time to back it up.  Provide the reader with accurate information to support your claim. Sometimes facts are commonly known, but not always. If there is a claim you’re making, it’s good to check your sources and even hyperlink your source when possible. Here, you might provide verifiable information explaining elephant social behavior including how they live in matriarchal herds and are not solitary.  

Once you’ve stated your position and backed up your argument, tell your reader what you want them to do. Maybe your goal is to make them aware of this problem. Alternatively, you might be asking them to take action such as calling their local representative and supporting a proposed ban on traveling elephant acts.  

Where to submit your op-ed

In addition to deciding on your topic, stating your position, supporting your opinion, and directing your reader to act, there are some other things to consider. Importantly, you must decide where you plan to submit your op-ed. Keep in mind that news sources and other media outlets typically require material that wasn’t previously published elsewhere.  This means you can’t blast out your op-ed to several publications all at once. Instead, you need to select a publication, submit the op-ed and then wait the required time to see if it’s selected for publication. If it isn’t, you can then submit it to another news source. Depending on your topic, you may want to start locally or with a regional publication that has a readership that would find your topic highly relevant.  

Keep in mind that you must follow the guidelines set by the newspaper. Most op-eds have a strict word limit. For regional publications the word limit is often shorter, whereas for larger newspapers you may have a word limit of 700-800 words. The submission guidelines will also tell you where to submit your op-ed, and also specify if a particular format is required.  

Op-ed topics focusing on nonhuman animals are interesting and relevant to a lot of readers. Writing an op-ed to help educate your community about some of the challenges faced by captive elephants, chimpanzees, or other nonhuman animals, and how recognition of animal rights can help meet these challenges, can make a positive impact. Animals are not voiceless. They communicate with us, expressing themselves through their own unique vocalizations and other actions. However, not everyone sees them. Writing an op-ed gives you the power to change that–and help us get closer to a reality where the legal system sees animals, too. 

An op-ed by Jamie: Illinois zoo’s new exhibit is going to be cruel to elephants (The State Journal-Register, September 2025)

The post How to write op-eds for animals appeared first on Nonhuman Rights Project.

Today, with no reasons given, Judge Alan Hertzberg denied the Nonhuman Rights Project’s request for a temporary restraining order to prevent the Pittsburgh Zoo from moving siblings Victoria and Zuri to the zoo’s elephant breeding facility. Below is our statement. 

During today’s hearing, lawyers for the Pittsburgh Zoo used the same tired arguments and false statements that come up in all our lawsuits to try to prevent our litigation seeking the elephants’ right to liberty from moving forward. They also announced during the hearing that Victoria and Zuri had already been moved to the zoo’s breeding facility. This move was made on October 27th, six days after we filed our lawsuit, with no public announcement. The zoo’s words and actions show that zoo leadership has no concern for the mental and physical anguish these elephants are forced to endure on a daily basis–anguish that’s even worse for the elephants used in captive breeding. The zoo cares only about being in compliance with bare-minimum regulations that preserve the zoo’s ability to deprive elephants of their autonomy. We’ll continue to fight for the elephants’ autonomy to be restored.

Access the NhRP’s media kit, including court filings and photos and videos of the elephants for use in media coverage (credit Molly Condit).Visit the elephants’ client page including the elephants’ biographies and information about the exhibitIn early 2025, a Pittsburgh-based national animal advocacy group called the Christian Animal Rights Association created a Change.org petition urging the director of the Pittsburgh Zoo to release the elephants to a sanctuary. It currently has over 13,000 signatures.The Pittsburgh Zoo has been included on In Defense of Animals’ list of “10 Worst Zoos for Elephants in North America” in 2016, 2017, 2019, and 2020.

The post Elephants Already Moved to Breeding Center, Pittsburgh Zoo says appeared first on Nonhuman Rights Project.

~ Supported by elephant cognition and behavior experts, the case is the first filed by the Nonhuman Rights Project in Pennsylvania ~

October 21, 2025—Pittsburgh, PA—The Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) has submitted a habeas corpus petition to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, demanding the right to liberty of five elephants held in captivity in the Pittsburgh Zoo. The filing comes less than a week after the Pittsburgh Zoo announced that two of the elephants, sisters Victoria and Zuri, will be transferred to its breeding center in Fairhope. The NhRP will also be petitioning the Court for injunctive relief to prevent this transfer while the litigation is ongoing.

The NhRP is initially asking the Court of Common Pleas to issue “an order to show cause,” which would require the Pittsburgh Zoo to justify its imprisonment of elephants Angeline, Savanna, Tasha, Victoria, and Zuri in a habeas corpus hearing. Courts in New York have already issued this habeas corpus order on behalf of an elephant and two chimpanzees. Ultimately, the NhRP is urging the Pennsylvania courts to either release the elephants to a sanctuary or consider them as candidates for rewilding. 

“The scientific evidence submitted in support of this lawsuit makes clear that these elephants are suffering physically and psychologically because they’re deprived of their freedom,” said NhRP Litigation Director Elizabeth Stein. “The courts have the power and duty to remedy this.” 

The first litigation of its kind in Pennsylvania, the NhRP’s petition has the support of renowned experts in elephant behavior and cognition whose declarations testify to elephants’ deep physical and psychological need for freedom of choice and movement. Several comment specifically on video footage of the elephants engaging in behaviors indicative of chronic stress and trauma, such as rocking, swaying, and head-bobbing–“a coping mechanism for the loneliness, boredom and frustration that characterizes zoo life,” writes Dr. Joyce Poole, who’s studied the social behavior and communication of elephants for over 50 years. These behaviors have never been seen in free-living elephants.  

The Pittsburgh Zoo stands out among US zoos for how long it has used dominance-based elephant management techniques. For example, it used bullhooks on the elephants until the Pittsburgh City Council passed a bullhook ban in 2017. A bullhook is a tool used to control elephants through pain and the fear of pain. In 2014, the USDA cited the Pittsburgh Zoo for using dogs to “nip and charge” the elephants. A year later, the zoo gave up its accreditation by the Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA) rather than comply with new safety standards that would prevent handlers from physically interacting with the elephants. In 2002, an elephant at the zoo, Moja, killed a handler. According to one news report, Moja was with her 3-year-old calf Victoria when a handler “urged her to move along, and the elephant butted him and pinned him to the ground with her head, crushing him.” Only in 2024 did the Pittsburgh Zoo regain its accreditation after finally agreeing to the new AZA standards. 

Like virtually all zoos accredited by AZA, the Pittsburgh Zoo has a history of forcibly separating elephants, including closely bonded ones. In 2014, the Pittsburgh Zoo transferred Moja to a wildlife safari in Oregon, separating her from her daughters Victoria and Zuri when they were 15 and six, respectively. As detailed in the expert declarations, elephants in the wild are close to their mothers and other herd members their entire lives. Absent court intervention, Victoria and Zuri, will themselves soon be separated from Tasha, Savanna, and Savanna’s daughter Angeline–elephants they’ve known their entire lives–to be used for breeding at the zoo’s “International Conservation Center.” 

On a recent visit to the Pittsburgh Zoo, the NhRP captured video of Angeline chewing on the chains that line her stall in the zoo’s concrete-floored elephant barn, where the elephants appear to spend much of their time behind bars, especially in the winter months. Another image  shows sisters Savanna and Tasha reaching out to touch each other’s trunks through the bars that separate them. 

“Recognizing the elephants’ right to liberty isn’t only appropriate as a matter of law, but also a matter of morality and justice,” said Courtney Fern, the NhRP’s Director of Government Relations and Campaigns. “At its core, this lawsuit is about deepening our respect for the freedom of other beings and making sure we’re upholding the values and principles of justice that protect us all.”

A currently unavailable documentary film, Elefamilia, provides a window into the history of captive elephant breeding at the zoo. One scene viewed by the NhRP shows Moja reaching out to Zuri after Zuri’s birth. They are separated by bars. Another shows a bullhook being used on and thrown at Savanna during and after Angeline’s birth. After the birth, Savanna was chained.

The NhRP is the only civil rights organization in the US dedicated solely to securing rights for nonhuman animals. Writing in The Atlantic, historian Jill Lepore called the NhRP’s litigation to free Happy the elephant from the Bronx Zoo to a sanctuary “the most important animal-rights case of the 21st century.” That litigation concluded in New York’s highest court in 2022, with Judges Rowan Wilson and Jenny Rivera issuing landmark dissenting opinions in favor of recognizing the availability of habeas corpus to certain nonhuman animals. 

The court had a duty to “to recognize Happy’s right to petition for her liberty not just because she is a wild animal who is not meant to be caged and displayed, but because the rights we confer on others define who we are as a society,” Judge Wilson wrote. Both Happy’s case and the Pittsburgh elephants’ case draw on fundamental principles of justice, liberty, and equality, centuries of case law, and the science of elephant cognition and behavior.

Access the NhRP’s media kit, including court filings and photos and videos of the elephants for use in media coverage (credit Molly Condit).Visit the elephants’ client page including the elephants’ biographies and information about the exhibitIn early 2025, a Pittsburgh-based national animal advocacy group called the Christian Animal Rights Association created a Change.org petition urging the director of the Pittsburgh Zoo to release the elephants to a sanctuary. It currently has over 13,000 signatures.The Pittsburgh Zoo has been included on In Defense of Animals’ list of “10 Worst Zoos for Elephants in North America” in 2016, 2017, 2019, and 2020.

The post Lawsuit Seeks Right to Liberty for Pittsburgh Zoo Elephants appeared first on Nonhuman Rights Project.

Below is a statement by NhRP Executive Director Christopher Berry on the decision issued today by the Michigan Court of Appeals in our habeas corpus lawsuit on behalf of seven chimpanzees confined in the DeYoung Family Zoo:

The Nonhuman Rights Project is deeply troubled that the Michigan Court of Appeals declined to protect autonomy—a supreme value under Michigan law—when the autonomous beings are chimpanzees. While the decision properly treated the issue of nonhuman eligibility for habeas corpus relief as one for judges to consider under the common law, the Court of Appeals held that it was bound by 19th-century Michigan Supreme Court precedent treating animals as mere property. The Nonhuman Rights Project will ask the Michigan Supreme Court to reject this outdated classification. The chimpanzees confined in the DeYoung Family Zoo deserve the law’s protection because they are autonomous beings whose suffering matters.

To watch the hearing, visit the Michigan Court of Appeals’ YouTube channel . To access the NhRP’s Michigan media kit, including key filings and photos and videos of the chimpanzees, visit this Google Drive folder . For the chimpanzees’ stories, information about the DeYoung Family Zoo, and a complete court case timeline, visit their client page . 

The post Statement on Michigan Court of Appeals decision appeared first on Nonhuman Rights Project.

Oct. 14, 2025—Lansing, MI—Today the Michigan Court of Appeals heard arguments by the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) concerning whether seven chimpanzees confined in the DeYoung Family Zoo are entitled to the right to liberty and a habeas corpus hearing on the lawfulness of their imprisonment. 

Six world-renowned experts in chimpanzee cognition and behavior, including the late Jane Goodall, submitted expert declarations in support of the NhRP’s case, which is the first of its kind in Michigan. The Animal Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan, Michigan State University School of Law Professors David Favre and Angie Vega, and the Michigan group Attorneys for Animals submitted a “friends of the court” brief in support. 

The expert declarations demonstrate that chimpanzees are autonomous beings who suffer physically and psychologically in an environment like the DeYoung Family Zoo, where they appear to be confined largely indoors in cages closed off from public view.    

“We appreciate the Court’s serious and rigorous engagement with our arguments today,” said Christopher Berry, Executive Director of the NhRP. “The core question now before the Court is whether the protection of autonomy will remain a supreme judicial value in Michigan or whether the protection of the autonomy of the chimpanzees confined in the DeYoung Family Zoo doesn’t matter simply because they’re chimpanzees.”

The NhRP filed a 127-page habeas corpus complaint on the chimpanzees’ behalf in 2023. Five days after the case was filed, a trial court judge issued a one-sentence order denying the complaint based solely on the fact that the NhRP’s clients aren’t human. The NhRP appealed and is now asking the Michigan Court of Appeals to direct the trial court to issue an “order to show cause” (a habeas corpus order that requires someone’s captor to come to court to justify their imprisonment) so that a hearing can be held on the merits of the chimpanzees’ case. 

NhRP Senior Staff Attorney Jake Davis, who argued the appeal, began his arguments with the story of Tommy, the NhRP’s first client, a chimpanzee who died alone in a building in the DeYoung Family Zoo after he was transferred there from New York. “His life can be characterized as little more than restrictive confinement informed by devastating traumas,” Davis said. As Davis referenced, Tommy’s case resulted in a historic opinion by New York Court of Appeals Judge Eugene Fahey urging his fellow judges to reconsider the legal status of chimpanzees as rightless “things.” 

Calling the NhRP’s oral arguments “very well presented,” Judge Brock Swartzle presided over the 25-minute hearing, which was nearly double the NhRP’s originally allotted time. Judge Swartzle’s questions centered on where to draw the line regarding other species, whether chimpanzees needed to be considered part of the social contract to receive the protections of habeas corpus, and whether the NhRP’s requested relief–releasing the chimpanzees to an accredited chimpanzee sanctuary–made sense given that a chimpanzee sanctuary is still a form of confinement. 

“If we were to agree with you, where’s the stopping point?” Judge Swartzle said. “Where would you draw the line? Would the trial court have to issue the order to show cause for any being–for a chimp, for a dog, what have you?”

Davis explained that the Court should evaluate these questions on a case-by-case basis and follow a two-step process: assess the intrinsic nature of the species based on the scientific evidence before the Court, as urged by Judge Fahey in New York, and then apply the common law principles and values accordingly. He also urged the Court not to replicate the error of the New York appellate court that denied Tommy the right to liberty because he supposedly can’t bear duties under a social contract; many humans can’t bear duties, yet unquestionably have the right to liberty. Moreover, Jane Goodall’s expert declaration, among several others, makes clear that chimpanzees can indeed bear duties, both among themselves and in relationship with humans. 

Regarding the NhRP’s requested relief, Davis explained that, while a chimpanzee sanctuary is still a form of confinement, the DeYoung chimpanzees “will be able to exercise their autonomy” to the greatest extent possible in such an environment–in a way they can’t at the DeYoung Family Zoo. A poll recently commissioned by the NhRP and conducted by RABA research suggests that 90% of Michiganders would support the release of animals from a roadside zoo like the DeYoung Family Zoo to a sanctuary if the animals were found to be suffering. The poll also suggests that 61% of Michiganders would support recognizing chimpanzees as legal persons (a legal person is an entity with at least one legal right) given that corporations are legal persons.  

Regarding when a court should issue an order to show cause on behalf of a nonhuman animal, Davis responded that it should do so when a prima facie case of unlawful confinement has been made–in other words, when a party has presented enough evidence to support its claim, as the NhRP has done in this case.

Toward the end of the proceeding, Judge Christopher Trebilcock said he was “curious about the broader issue” of why laws prohibiting animal cruelty are insufficient to protect the interests of the chimpanzees. 

“If those laws were sufficient,” Davis said, “we would not be here today … Habeas corpus has a history of challenging confinements that violated no law, they violated no statutory right, but were otherwise unjust.” 

Judge Swartzle concluded the hearing by expressing appreciation for the NhRP “coming and answering our questions. It’s a novel issue obviously. We’ve already given it some attention, and we’ll give it more attention.”

A decision is expected in the coming weeks or months.  The NhRP remains hopeful the Michigan courts will ensure justice is done and grant the chimpanzees relief from their unlawful confinement.

“As Tommy’s story shows, what’s at stake here is not just judicial values like the protection of autonomy,” said Berry regarding this juncture in the case. “For the seven surviving chimpanzees at the DeYoung Family Zoo, it’s about whether their suffering will ever end.”

To watch the hearing, visit the Michigan Court of Appeals’ YouTube channel . To access the NhRP’s Michigan media kit, including key filings and photos and videos of the chimpanzees, visit this Google Drive folder . For the chimpanzees’ stories, information about the DeYoung Family Zoo, and a complete court case timeline, visit their client page . 

The post Michigan Court of Appeals Hears Arguments in Support of Chimpanzees’ Right to Liberty appeared first on Nonhuman Rights Project.

Our lawsuit demanding freedom and sanctuary for seven chimpanzees held captive at the DeYoung Family Zoo is the first case of its kind in Michigan. As we prepare for our hearing before the Michigan Court of Appeals on October 14th, our commitment to securing our clients’ right to liberty is strengthened by the extraordinary support their case has received from leading experts and advocates.

Most recently, the Michigan Court of Appeals accepted an amicus brief submitted in support of the NhRP by Attorneys for Animals, the Animal Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan, and Professors David Favre and Angie Vega who are both part of the Animal Law Project at the Michigan State University College of Law. Their brief underscores the legal and ethical significance of our arguments.

Our complaint is also supported by affidavits and declarations from six of the world’s foremost experts in chimpanzee behavior and cognition, including the late Dr. Jane Goodall, who—in her declaration of support—wrote:

“There is ample proof from studies of chimpanzee behavior, both in the wild and in captivity, that chimpanzees are autonomous beings with a highly complex cognitive nature.” 

The legal and scientific insights submitted by these experts in their briefs and affidavits provide a powerful scientific foundation for our habeas corpus complaint and reinforce the urgency of recognizing the autonomy and protecting the freedom of our chimpanzee clients.

We are so grateful for their participation in the chimpanzees’ case, and we’re equally grateful for your continued engagement and support. We’re proud to be part of a community of people who are equally committed to justice and freedom for all autonomous nonhuman beings.

Our hearing on behalf of the DeYoung chimpanzees is just one week from today. We hope you’ll tune in. Watch the hearing live on October 14th at 10:00 am ET via the Court’s YouTube channel.

The post Expert support for Michigan chimpanzee rights case appeared first on Nonhuman Rights Project.

The Nonhuman Rights Project is deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Dr. Jane Goodall. As one of our first board members, Dr. Goodall offered her support for our mission and work in the very early days of the NhRP, when the concept of nonhuman animals as legal persons with rights was still just an idea and not the legal reality it’s now becoming. Dr. Goodall was a personal and professional inspiration to our entire team. Her groundbreaking studies of wild chimpanzees transformed the world’s understanding of nonhuman minds. Our work would not be possible without her, and our gratitude for her contributions to our court cases seeking the right to liberty for imprisoned chimpanzees is beyond measure. 

Expressing a deep kinship between her work and ours, Dr. Goodall told us to “never give up” on our mission: “I’m helping people to understand and feel in their hearts that these animals are deserving of personhood.” The Nonhuman Rights Project will continue to take inspiration from Dr. Goodall’s courageous leadership in creating a more just and compassionate world for all.

The post On the death of Dr. Jane Goodall appeared first on Nonhuman Rights Project.

The Nonhuman Rights Project is deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Dr. Jane Goodall. As one of our first board members, Dr. Goodall offered her support for our mission and work in the very early days of the NhRP, when the concept of nonhuman animals as legal persons with rights was still just an idea and not the legal reality it’s now becoming. Dr. Goodall was a personal and professional inspiration to our entire team. Her groundbreaking studies of wild chimpanzees transformed the world’s understanding of nonhuman minds. Our work would not be possible without her, and our gratitude for her contributions to our court cases seeking the right to liberty for imprisoned chimpanzees is beyond measure. 

Expressing a deep kinship between her work and ours, Dr. Goodall told us to “never give up” on our mission: “I’m helping people to understand and feel in their hearts that these animals are deserving of personhood.” The Nonhuman Rights Project will continue to take inspiration from Dr. Goodall’s courageous leadership in creating a more just and compassionate world for all.

The post Statement on the death of Dr. Jane Goodall appeared first on Nonhuman Rights Project.

Two years ago today, the Ojai City Council in California passed an ordinance that, for the first time in the United States, recognized a legal right for a nonhuman animal—elephants’ right to liberty. Because the Ojai City Council stood up for justice for elephants, Ojai became the first US city to affirm through legislation that elephants are rights-holders, not rightless things.

Introduced by Council Member Leslie Rule and developed with and supported by the Nonhuman Rights Project, the bill made national news upon its passage. I’ll never forget the night of the final hearing on the bill. Sitting in the council chamber, I felt the significance of what we were doing together, not only for elephants in California but for the nonhuman rights movement. For centuries, elephants have been denied basic freedom in this country. Historians believe the first elephant to be imprisoned and exploited here was Old Bet. In 1796, she was imported from India at two years old, purchased by the founder of Barnum & Bailey Circus, and transported around the country as his main attraction until she died at age 20, most likely killed by a circus-goer. In the 1980s, an elephant named Tarra was held captive in Ojai and made to perform as “The Roller-Skating Elephant.” With this ordinance, Ojai made clear that elephant imprisonment and exploitation will never again be tolerated within its city limits.

This ordinance was groundbreaking because it went beyond animal welfare. Welfare laws may regulate suffering, but they do not stop it. They do not recognize what elephants need most: the right to live freely, on their own terms.

By enshrining elephants’ right to liberty, Ojai set a precedent rooted in justice. It said elephants are autonomous, emotionally complex beings with fundamental interests that must be legally protected. And in doing so, Ojai sent a message that the principles of liberty, equality, and compassion must extend beyond our species.

Building momentum

In the months and years since, we have drawn upon Ojai’s example in every conversation with lawmakers. The ordinance sparked an extraordinary ripple effect: elected officials and legislative staff from across the country reached out to share their support and express interest in pursuing similar legislation. For many, Ojai was the first time they had seriously considered the idea that elephants and other nonhuman animals deserve actual, enforceable legal rights. This engagement has deepened lawmakers’ understanding of why animal welfare laws, though important, are not sufficient to protect elephants from physical and psychological harm. Legislation takes time and persistence, and we are steadily building the relationships and networks that will lead to more laws like Ojai’s being passed in other jurisdictions.

Ojai showed that the conversation is shifting. That elected officials, when presented with the evidence of elephants’ autonomy and the moral urgency of their plight, are willing to act. It gave us proof, when speaking with officials in other cities and states, that rights-based legal protections for nonhuman animals aren’t theoretical, they’re possible. And it gave hope for the seventeen elephants still held captive in California zoos, and hundreds more across the US, that change is not only coming, but already here.

What comes next

Two years later, our movement is stronger than ever. Courts are grappling with the question of nonhuman rights in ways that would have been unthinkable a decade ago. In California, we continue to fight for elephant rights in court and in legislative bodies.

Ojai’s ordinance showed that justice for nonhuman animals is not a distant dream; it’s a growing reality. On this anniversary, I am filled with gratitude for the Ojai community, for Councilmember Leslie Rule who championed this cause, and for everyone who has joined us in saying that elephants deserve nothing less than to have their right to liberty recognized and protected—for them to finally experience freedom.

We will continue to carry Ojai’s message forward, city by city, state by state, until the day comes when all elephants can live freely as the autonomous beings they are.

The post How Ojai made animal rights history appeared first on Nonhuman Rights Project.

I’m glad to be able to share with you that we now have a hearing date in our case demanding the right to liberty for the seven chimpanzees confined at the DeYoung Family Zoo in Michigan.

On October 14th at 10 a.m. ET, an appellate court in Lansing will hear the Nonhuman Rights Project’s arguments calling for the chimpanzees’ freedom. This appeal comes in response to a Michigan trial court judge’s one-sentence denial of the NhRP’s 127-page habeas corpus complaint, which sought a hearing on the merits of the chimpanzees’ case with the goal of securing their release to an accredited sanctuary. The NhRP has already secured similar hearings in other cases. Essentially, the trial court judge refused the chimpanzees any possibility of relief from their confinement through the writ of habeas corpus simply because they’re chimpanzees.

The hearing is open to the public and will be live-streamed on the Court’s YouTube channel. You can help raise awareness of this hearing and show the court that chimpanzee freedom matters. Here are three different ways to help, no matter where you live:

Share the chimpanzees’ client page, which includes their stories, a petition, and more information about the case, including hearing details.Look out for our social media posts about the hearing and share them with your network.Watch the hearing remotely on the 14th via the Court’s YouTube channel (note, a recording will be posted to this channel at a later date).Attend the hearing in person.

As you may know, the chimpanzees at the DeYoung Family Zoo are barely visible to the public—and in the eyes of the law. In fact, other than one chimpanzee named Louie, all of the others appear to be nameless, which is why we refer to them in our complaint as Prisoners B-G. As outlined in our complaint, the available evidence suggests they’re largely confined to barren, concrete-floored cages behind closed doors, living in conditions known to cause suffering to these self-aware, autonomous beings.

In addition to this hearing being the first of its kind in Michigan, it’s also personally important to me. This is because the NhRP’s first client Tommy was transferred to the DeYoung Family Zoo in 2015 from a cage on a used trailer lot in Gloversville, New York. Unbeknownst to the NhRP, this transfer occurred while our litigation on behalf of Tommy was ongoing. So you might wonder, then, why Tommy isn’t part of this litigation. The answer is tragic. In late 2023, less than a week before we filed our lawsuit in Michigan, we received long-awaited records indicating Tommy died “curled up in his sleeping spot” inside a building at the DeYoung Family Zoo.

How can Tommy’s life and death be so hidden from public view? Very simply. Tommy was considered a legal “thing.” He had no more rights than the TV kept just outside the cage on the used trailer lot where he spent much of his life. I was proud to be part of the fight for Tommy’s right to liberty then, and I’m proud to be part of the fight for the DeYoung Prisoners’ right to liberty now.

Having been a lawyer with the NhRP from the very early days, I’ve seen what we can do when we come together to raise awareness of the suffering caused by our clients’ rightlessness and their need for justice. For example, in 2018, before it was known that Tommy had been moved out of the jurisdiction of the New York courts, a judge on the state’s highest court wrote of his rightlessness:

“Does an intelligent nonhuman animal who thinks and plans and appreciates life as human beings do have the right to the protection of the law against arbitrary cruelties and enforced detentions visited on him or her? This is not merely a definitional question, but a deep dilemma of ethics and policy that demands our attention. To treat a chimpanzee as if he or she had no right to liberty protected by habeas corpus is to regard the chimpanzee as entirely lacking independent worth, as a mere resource for human use, a thing the value of which consists exclusively in its usefulness to others. Instead, we should consider whether a chimpanzee is an individual with inherent value who has the right to be treated with respect.”

This hearing in Michigan represents an important opportunity to encourage the justice system to act with courage and recognize these chimpanzees as the autonomous beings they are, instead of leaving them to suffer without freedom in a state of legal invisibility. To deny them the right to liberty merely because they were born chimpanzees is unjust, arbitrary, and biased. We look forward to urging the appellate court to right this incredible wrong.

Thank you so much for your support.

The post Hearing date in Michigan chimpanzee rights case appeared first on Nonhuman Rights Project.