Skip to main content
  • Our New Client in Our First California Lawsuit 
  • LA Times: “For too long, we’ve salved our consciences with tepid animal welfare laws”
  • “The most important animal-rights case of the 21st century”
  • NhRP Seminar Series
  • NhRP Interview Series
<
>
Blog

Back to nonhumanrights.org

  • Donate
  • Shop   ↗

Back to nonhumanrights.org

  • About NhRP
    • Meet the Team
    • Our Story
    • FAQ
    • Unlocking the Cage
    • Media Center
    • Contact Us
  • Our Work
    • Litigation
    • Legislation + Advocacy
    • Education
    • The Fight to #FreeTheFresnoElephants
    • Free Happy Now
  • Progress
  • Blog

Court Cases

What Is The Common Law?

By Steven Wise on April 3, 2011
Share this story:

Last week I wrote that the goals of the Nonhuman Rights Project are to educate and persuade the judges of an American state high court that a nonhuman animal has the capacity to possess common law rights. The last six words, “capacity to possess common law rights,” contain three complicated ideas: “capacity to possess,” “common law,” and “rights.” Unless you have an idea of what those six words mean, you won’t understand what the Nonhuman Rights Project is trying to do. That’s why now, and over the next few weeks, I’ll briefly explain them.

Let’s start with the common law. The common law is what English-speaking judges around the world have been making for a thousand years in the process of deciding cases that turn on general legal principles, and when they’re not interpreting statutes or constitutions, regulations or treaties. American federal courts don’t use the common law. Neither does the state of Louisiana, which has a French civil law heritage, and Puerto Rico, which once used Spanish civil law. But the other 49 American states and the District of Columbia all use the common law.

How does a judge decide what the common law should be? Before the mid-Nineteenth Century American Civil War, Lemuel Shaw, one of America’s greatest common law judges, thought it consisted “of a few broad and comprehensive principles, founded on reason, natural justice, and enlightened public policy, modified and adapted to the circumstances of all the particular cases which fall within it.” That remains a pretty good definition and I use it today.

Shaw left out one thing, the influence on the development of the common law of cases that have been decided previously. That’s because he didn’t care about how previous judges dealt with some problem. But a lot of common law judges do. They value stability and certainty in the law, even when that law might be morally wrong or bad for society, and so they decide cases by determining how other judges have ruled then trying to do the same thing. But Shaw, and our other great common law judges, don’t do that. They struggle to determine the morally right thing to do or the best thing to do for society, each based on modern morality, experience, and scientific fact. Then they do it.

Steven Wise is the founder and president of the NhRP, representing nonhuman animals in the courtroom and serving as lead spokesperson for the organization’s work.

Must Reads

  • Why Happy needs and deserves sanctuary in Court Cases, Grassroots Advocacy
  • Amicus support for the fight to #FreeHappy in Court Cases
  • Where is Tommy the Chimp? in News
  • Why We Fight for Nonhuman Rights: Sk’aliCh’elh-tenaut’s Story Part 1 in Stories
  • “The key is ending injustice, period” in Interviews

Get Involved

Subscribe to our email list to receive updates and learn about events and volunteer opportunities in your area.

Nonhuman Rights Project

We are the only civil rights organization in the United States dedicated solely to securing rights for nonhuman animals.

5195 NW 112th Terrace
Coral Springs, FL 33076
Tax ID #: 04-3289466

Sign up to receive updates

© 2023 Nonhuman Rights Project, all rights reserved.

  • Privacy

Follow us to get updates