The following statement is attributable to Jake Davis, Senior Staff Attorney at the Nonhuman Rights Project and lead counsel in the Michigan chimpanzee case, regarding NhRP’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Today, the Nonhuman Rights Project filed a motion asking the Michigan Supreme Court to reconsider its decision not to hear our appeal on behalf of seven chimpanzees confined at the DeYoung Family Zoo. While the Court declined to hear the case, that decision was not unanimous. In a historic dissent, Justice Elizabeth Welch wrote that the case “raises profound questions about bodily autonomy and whether the law should expand to offer protection to other living beings,” and concluded that the Court should have granted review to consider whether Michigan’s common law should evolve in light of today’s scientific understanding of chimpanzees.
The NhRP’s motion asks the Court to reconsider its decision in light of Justice Welch’s dissent, which concluded that the Court of Appeals’ published opinion relied on flawed legal reasoning. It challenges the Court of Appeals’ holding that chimpanzees are not “persons” eligible for habeas corpus relief. Because that opinion is now binding precedent in Michigan and may influence similar cases across the country, we believe its significant legal errors deserve review by the state’s highest court. Our motion explains why Michigan’s common law should not be shaped by outdated legal theories and why these important questions about liberty and justice should be fully considered.
“The common law is not static—it grows and adapts as society’s understanding of justice evolves,” said Jake Davis, Senior Staff Attorney at the Nonhuman Rights Project. “This case seeks to vindicate our chimpanzee clients’ right to liberty protected by habeas corpus. Our motion asks the Michigan Supreme Court to take another look at a decision that relies on outdated legal theories rather than today’s scientific understanding of the intrinsic nature of chimpanzees as a species. The common law is designed to evolve as our knowledge evolves, and we respectfully ask the Court to exercise its responsibility to ensure Michigan’s common law continues to develop in a just and rational way.”