A debate over whether elephants are “people,” legally speaking, will go to the Hawai‘i Supreme Court.
In 2023, the Nonhuman Rights Project — a Florida-based nonprofit dedicated to challenging the legal status of animals — filed a petition in the First Circuit Court in Honolulu on behalf of two elephants at the Honolulu Zoo, Mari and Vaigai.
That petition was a writ of habeas corpus, a legal mechanism calling for a court to review and overturn a person’s potentially unlawful imprisonment. Even non-human animals like elephants, the petition argued, have a right by common law to bodily liberty, and the petition requested that the court order that Mari and Vaigai be released to an elephant sanctuary.
Whether Mari and Vaigai can legally be considered people became the central issue in the ensuing court case, which has been appealed up to the state’s highest court: the state Supreme Court accepted a petition to hear the case last week.
This wasn’t the first time the Nonhuman Rights Project has argued that habeas corpus applies to non-human animals in general or elephants in particular: the New York Court of Appeals heard a habeas corpus petition by the Nonhuman Rights Project on behalf of an elephant, Happy, who was kept at the Bronx Zoo.
While the New York court ultimately ruled against the Nonhuman Rights Project, that they heard the case at all “refuted the irrational and arbitrary notion that only members of the species Homo sapiens may invoke the protections of the Great Writ,” the Honolulu petition read.
“As societal norms and knowledge about nonhuman animals evolve, so too must common law,” the petition went on.
That additional knowledge about elephants made up a substantial portion of the Honolulu petition, going into detail about the animals’ sophisticated cognitive abilities and potential for self-awareness.
Mari, 50, and Vaigai, 40, were born in the wild, but were respectively gifted to the Honolulu Zoo 44 and 34 years ago as gifts by the prime ministers of India at the time. Since then, they have lived apart from any other animals of their species, something the petition called “undeniably cruel,” given elephants’ highly social nature.
The petition also claimed that the conditions of the Honolulu Zoo are detrimental to the elephants’ health. Both animals are obese, the petition claims, and only have access to an “impoverished environment” for stimulation.
”When the elephants are not simply standing and feeding, they can be seen walking between the front and back yards on the same path every time,” the petition read. “Mari and Vaigai’s lives are nothing but a succession of boring and frustrating days, damaging to their bodies and minds, and punctuated only by interaction with their keepers.”
While the First Circuit dismissed the petition in 2024 — arguing that habeas corpus under the common law are only available to humans — the Nonhuman Rights Project appealed the case to the state Intermediate Court of Appeals.
That court ruled in January in support of the First Circuit’s decision. By that point, the legal argument revolved around the legal definition of “person” and whether it specifically means “human” in all instances. Writing for the majority opinion, Judge Keith Hiraoka wrote that “person” and “animal” are considered separate legal categories throughout common law, for example as relating to theft of property including animals or anti-bestiality laws.
Nonetheless, the debate will continue in the Supreme Court, although future court dates have not yet been scheduled.
Aloha State Daily reached out to the Honolulu Zoo for comment.
For the latest news of Hawai‘i, sign up here for our free Daily Edition newsletter.
