Is an elephant legally a person?

That’s the central question in a case that New York’s highest court considered Wednesday in a dispute over the living quarters of Happy, an Asian elephant at the Bronx Zoo.

The Nonhuman Rights Project, an animal rights organization, argued that Happy is an autonomous and cognitively complex animal entitled to the same right of protection against unlawful imprisonment that people have. The zoo contends that the elephant is well cared-for and that her holding is not illegal.

“What we’re saying is that she has a right to bodily liberty and that that makes her no longer a thing,” Steven Wise, president of the Nonhuman Rights Project, said in an interview. “She’s a person.”

In a hearing, the seven-member New York State Court of Appeals asked attorneys for both parties about the definition of autonomy, how the elephant’s bodily liberty could be achieved and the potential effects of a decision that Happy should be moved.

U.S. history is rife with contentious arguments over who or what constitutes a person, philosophically and under the law. Enslaved people were once counted as three-fifths of a person for determining taxes and congressional seats. Courts have ruled that corporations can be considered persons in some circumstances, such as questions of political speech. The idea that fetuses are persons is central to some antiabortion arguments.

Another point for elephant intelligence: They know when their bodies are in the way

In Happy’s case, her attorneys contend that she is so autonomous and intelligent that she has a right to bodily liberty. She passed a mirror self-recognition test in 2005 — an indication of her self-awareness, her advocates say. Their legal argument focuses on the common-law right of habeas corpus, which is typically used to determine whether a person’s detention is lawful. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/is-happy-the-zoo-elephant-legally-a-person-a-court-will-decide/ar-AAXqzEt