This chapter is divided into two parts. In the first part, you will find a useful list with links to all the cases cited in the book, as well as some additional cases. In the second part, you will find scholarly references on all the topics covered in the book chapter.

Cases cited in Chapter 6

Cetacean Community v Bush

• S. District Court, District of Hawaii, Cetacean Community vs Bush, 249 F Supp 2d 1206, 7 March 2003 https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/249/1206/2460816/
• S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Cetacean Community vs Bush, 386 F.3d 1169, 20 October 2004 https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1459189.html

Sea World (Tilikum)

• US District Court, Southern District of California, Tilikum v Sea World, 842 F Supp 2d 1259, 8 February 2012 is available at https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/casdce/3:2011cv02476/367426/32/

Naruto

• US District Court, Northern District of California, Naruto v Slater, 15 cv 04324 WHO, 28 January 2016, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2015cv04324/291324/45

• US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Naruto v Slater, 888 F.3d 418, 23 April 2018, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/16-15469/16-15469-2018-04-23.html

Tommy and Kiko

• New York State Supreme Court, Fulton County, Nonhuman Rights Project (Tommy) v Lavery, no. 02051, 3 December 2013 https://www.nonhumanrights.org/content/uploads/Fulton-Cty-hearing-re.-Tommy-12-2-13.pdf

• Appellate Division, New York Supreme Court (Third Department), Nonhuman Rights Project (Tommy) v Lavery, 2014 WL 6802767, 4 December 2014 https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-third-department/2014/518336.html

• Appellate Division, New York Supreme Court (Fourth Department), Nonhuman Rights Project (Kiko) v Presti, 124 AD3d 1334, 2 January 2015 http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_00085.htm

• New York Court of Appeals, Nonhuman Rights Project (Tommy and Kiko) v Lavery, Motion no. 2018-286, 8 May 2018 http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2018/May18/M2018-268opn18-Decision.pdf

Hercules and Leo

• New York State Supreme Court, Suffolk County, Nonhuman Rights Project (Hercules and Leo) v Stanley, no. 13-32098, 5 December 2013 https://www.nonhumanrights.org/content/uploads/Transcript-of-Suffolk-County-Decision-re-Hercules-Leo-12.5.13.pdf

• New York Supreme Court, New York County, Nonhuman Rights Project (Hercules and Leo) v Stanley, no. 152 736/15, 29 July 2015 https://www.nonhumanrights.org/content/uploads/Judge-Jaffes-Decision-7-30-15.pdf

Cecilia

• Judicial Branch of Mendoza, Third Court of Guarantees, Re Cecilia, P-72 254/15, 3 November 2016, translation is available at nonhumanrights.org/content/uploads/Chimpanzee-Cecilia_translation-FINAL-for-website-2.pdf

Chucho

• Tribunal Superior del Distrito Judicial de Manizales [T.S.D.J.Man.] [Superior Court of the Judicial District of Manizales], Sala Civ. Fam. julio 13, 2017, M.S: C. Cruz Valencia, Expediente 17001-22-13-000-2017-00468-00

• Supreme Court of Justice, Labour Cassation Chamber, no. STL12651-2017, Dkt 47924, 16 August 2017, https://www.animallaw.info/case/decision-stl12651-2017

• Supreme Court, Civil Cassation Chamber, no. AHC4806-2017, 26 July 2017, translation available at nonhumanrights.org/content/uploads/Translation-Chucho-Decision-Translation-Javier-Salcedo.pdf

• Constitutional Court, no. T-6.480.577, SU-016/20, 23 January 2020, translation available at https://www.nonhumanrights.org/content/uploads/English-Chucho-the-Bear-FINAL.pdf

Beulah, Karen, and Minnie

• Superior Court, District of Litchfield, Nonhuman Rights Project v Commerford, LLI-CV-17-5009822-S, 26 December 2017 https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=13631754

• Appellate Court of Connecticut, Nonhuman Rights Project v Commerford, 216 A 3d 839, 20 August 2019 https://casetext.com/case/nonhuman-rights-project-inc-v-rw-commerford-sons-inc

• Supreme Court of Connecticut, Nonhuman Rights Project v Commerford, LLI-CV-17-5009822-S, 2 October 2019 https://www.nonhumanrights.org/content/uploads/Ct-Supreme-Court-denial-of-petition.pdf

• Supreme Court of Connecticut, Nonhuman Rights Project v Commerford, LLI-CV-18-5010773-S, 7 July 2020 http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=nHNIUcRF%2fvVS6Flpu5%2b3NQ%3d%3d

Happy

• New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County, Nonhuman Rights Project v Breheny, no. 260441/2019, 18 February 2020 https://www.nonhumanrights.org/content/uploads/HappyFeb182020.pdf

• Appellate Division, New York State Supreme Court (First Department), Nonhuman Rights Project v Breheny, no. 260441/19, 17 December 2020 https://www.nonhumanrights.org/content/uploads/2020_02581_The_Nonhuman_Rights_Pr_v_The_Nonhuman_Rights_Pr_DECISION_AND_ORDER_21.pdf

• New York Court of Appeals, Nonhuman Rights Project v James J Breheny, No. 52, 14 June 2022 https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2022/Jun22/52opn22-Decision.pdf

Nagaraja

• Supreme Court, Animal Welfare Board of India v A Nagaraja and Ors, 7 SCC 547, 7 May 2014 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39696860/

Kaavan

• Islamabad High Court, Islamabad Wildlife Management Board v Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad, WP no. 1155/2019 (Kaavan), 21 May 2020 https://www.nonhumanrights.org/content/uploads/KAAVAN-Supp.Order-7.18.20.pdf..pdf

Swiss Primates Rights

• Constitutional Court of the Canton Basel-Stadt, no. VG.2018.1, 15 January 2019 [in German], available at https://rechtsprechung.gerichte.bs.ch/cgi-bin/nph-omniscgi.exe?OmnisPlatform=WINDOWS&WebServerUrl=&WebServerScript=/cgi-bin/nph-omniscgi.exe&OmnisLibrary=JURISWEB&OmnisClass=rtFindinfoWebHtmlService&OmnisServer=JURISWEB,7000&Parametername=WEB&Schema=BS_FI_WEB&Source=&Aufruf=getMarkupDocument&cSprache=DE&nF30_KEY=64998&W10_KEY=1075329&nTrefferzeile=3&Template=search_result_document.html

• Federal Supreme Court, no. 1C_105/2019, 16 September 2020 [in German], available at https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?lang=de&type=highlight_simple_query&page=1&from_date=&to_date=&sort=relevance&insertion_date=&top_subcollection_aza=all&query_words=grundrechte+primaten&rank=1&azaclir=aza&highlight_docid=aza%3A%2F%2F16-09-2020-1C_105-2019&number_of_ranks=90693

Estrellita

• Constitutional Court, no. 253-20-JH/22, 27 January 2022 [in translation] https://animal.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/Final-Judgment-Estrellita-w-Translation-Certification.pdf

Md Mohazzim

• Delhi High Court, People for Animals v Md Mohazzim & Anr, Crl MC no. 2051/2015 and Crl MA No 7294/2015, 15 May 2015, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163664556/

Stray Dogs

• Delhi High Court, no 4164/2021, 24 June 2021, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/167511972/

Karnail Singh

• High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Karnail Singh v State of Haryana, no CRR-533-2013, 31 May 2019 is available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68914216/

Sandra

• National Chamber of Criminal and Correctional Appeals, Orangutan Sandra Habeas Corpus (2), CCC 68831/2014/CA1, 14 November 2014, https://www.animallaw.info/case/orangutana-sandra-s-habeas-corpus

• Federal Criminal Court of Appeals, Orangutan Sandra S/Habeas Corpus, CCC 68831/2014/CFCI, 18 December 2014, https://www.nonhumanrights.org/blog/copy-of-argentine-court-ruling/

• Judicial Branch of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, AFADA v GCBA and others, Re: Amparo, A2174-2015/0, 25 October 2015, https://www.animallaw.info/case/asociacion-de-funcionarios-y-abogados-por-los-derechos-de-los-animales-y-otros-contra-gcba

• Judicial Branch of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Administrative Litigation and Taxation Jurisdiction, AFADA v GCBA, Re: Amparo, no. A2174-2015/0, 14 June 2016 [in Spanish] http://underconstitucional.blogspot.com/2016/06/orangutana-sandra-sentencia-de-camara.html

Additional cases

Reece

• For an additional case on access to justice for animals, which includes discussion of animal rights, see Fraser CJA’s dissenting judgment in the Canadian case, Reece v Edmonton (City of), 2011 ABCA 238, available at https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/medias/3141

• For commentary on Reece, see: Katie Sykes and Vaughan Black, ‘Don’t Think About Elephants: Reece v City of Edmonton’ (2012) 63 University of New Brunswick Law Journal 145, available at https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/unblj/article/view/29147, Tyler Totten, ‘Should Elephants Have Standing?’ (2015) 6 Western Journal of Legal Studies 1, available at https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/uwojls/article/view/5640, and Peter Sankoff, ‘OpportunityLost: The Supreme Court Misses a Historic Chance to Consider Question of Public Interest Standing for Animal Interests’ (2012) 30 Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 129, available at https://doi.org/10.22329/wyaj.v30i2.4372

Hamat Gader and Noah

• For two additional cases from Israel that use constitutional rights methodology (proportionality) in balancing animal and human interests under Israel’s anti-cruelty law, see: Let the Animals Live v Hamat Gader, [1997] LCA 1684/96, available at https://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/opinions/let-animals-live-v-hamat-gader, and “Noah” - The Israeli Federation of Animal Protection Organizations v The Attorney-General 8 [2003] HCJ 9232/01, available at https://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/opinions/%E2%80%9Cnoah%E2%80%9D-israeli-federation-animal-protection-organizations-v-attorney-general

Cat Welfare Society

• For an additional case from Israel that discusses animals as rights-holders, see Cat Welfare Society v Arad Municipality [1998] HCJ 6446/96 [in Hebrew], available at https://datacheck.co.il/PsakDin.asp?id=25156

• For background and commentary on the Israeli cases, see: Ariel L Bendor and Hadar Dancig-Rosenberg, ‘Animal Rights in the Shadow of the Constitution’ (2018) 24 Animal Law 99, available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340788984_ANIMAL_RIGHTS_IN_THE_SHADOW_OF_THE_CONSTITUTION 

Chapter 6 references

1. Introduction

• For sceptical takes on the potential of litigation to improve the treatment of animals, see: Jonathan R Lovvorn, ‘Public Perception, and the Limits of Animal Rights Theory for Reform’ (2006) 12 Animal Law 133, available at https://www.animallaw.info/article/animal-law-action-law-public-perception-and-limits-animal-rights-theory-basis-legal-reform and, drawing on the American critical legal studies school, Matthew Liebman, ‘Who the Judge Ate for Breakfast: On the Limits of Creativity in Animal Lawand the Redeeming Power of Powerlessness’ (2011) 18 Animal L. 133, available at https://www.animallaw.info/sites/default/files/lralvol18_1_p133.pdf

• For more in-depth treatments of the critiques of rights and adjudication within the American critical legal studies school, see: Duncan Kennedy, ‘The Critique of Rights in Critical Legal Studies’ in Wendy Brown and Janet E Halley (eds), Left legalism/left critique (Duke University Press 2002), available at https://doi.org/10.1515/9780822383871-007 and Mark Tushnet, ‘An Essay on Rights’ (1984) 62 Texas Law Review 1363, available at http://www.dariaroithmayr.com/pdfs/assignments/Tushnet,%20Essay%20on%20Rights.pdf

2. Animals and the Issue of Legal Standing to Bring an Action

• For a seminal article on standing and rights for animals, see: Christopher D Stone, ‘Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects’ (1972) 45 Southern California Law Review 450, available at https://iseethics.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/stone-christopher-d-should-trees-have-standing.pdf

• For a panel discussion by animal lawyers about standing for animals, see: David N Cassuto, ‘Legal Standing for Animals and Advocates’ (2006) 13 Animal Law 61, available at https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/512/

• For an analysis of barriers to access to justice for animals, including standing requirements, see: Delcianna J Winders, ‘Confronting Barriers to the Courtroom for Animal Advocates’ (2006) 13 Animal Law 1, available at https://www.animallaw.info/article/confronting-barriers-courtroom-animal-advocates

• For an analysis of how and why courts avoid hearing contentious issues (such as through appealing to procedural requirements like standing doctrine), see: Erin F Delaney, ‘Analyzing Avoidance: Judicial Strategy in Comparative Perspective’ (2016) 66 Duke Law Journal 1, available at http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol66/iss1/1

• For an analysis of Cetacean Community v Bush, see: Matthew Armstrong, ‘Cetacean Community v. Bush: The False Hope of Animal Rights Lingers On’ (2006) 12 Hastings Environmental Law Journal 185, available at https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_environmental_law_journal/vol12/iss2/11/

• For commentary on the Hiasl cases, see: Martin Balluch and Eberhart Theuer, ‘Trial on Personhood for Chimp “Hiasl”’ 24 Linz 335, available at https://www.altex.org/index.php/altex/issue/view/43

• For commentary on the Sea World case, see: Becky Boyle, ‘Free Tilly?: Legal Personhood for Animals and the Intersectionality of the Civil & Animal Rights Movements’ (2016) 4 Social Equality 169, available at https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijlse/vol4/iss2/5/, and Jeffrey S Kerr and others, ‘A Slave by Any Other Name Is Still a Slave: The Tilikum Case and Application of the Thirteenth Amendment to Nonhuman Animals’ (2013) 19 Animal Law 221, available at https://www.animallaw.info/article/slave-any-other-name-still-slave-tilikum-case-and-application-thirteenth-amendment-nonhuman

• For commentary on Naruto, see: Matthew P Hooker, ‘Naruto v. Slater: One Small Step for a Monkey, One Giant Lawsuit for Animal-Kind’ (2020) 10 Wake Forest Law Review Online 15, available at http://www.wakeforestlawreview.com/2020/02/naruto-v-slater-one-small-step-for-a-monkey-one-giant-lawsuit-for-animal-kind/, and Nathan Hakimi, ‘Monkey Business: Copyright, Stunt Litigation, & New Visions in Animal Law’ (2017) 9 Journal of Animal and Environmental Law 1, available at https://www.louisvillejael.com/animal-law-articles

3. Animals as Subjects of Habeas Corpus

• For a critical discussion of the potentials and limits of habeas corpus litigation for animals, see: Jessica Eisen, ‘Litigating Animal Captivity’ in Lori Gruen and Justin Marceau (eds), Carceral Logics: Human Incarceration and Animal Captivity (Cambridge University Press 2022), available at https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108919210.023

• For commentary on the Tommy cases, see: Holly Duggan, ‘Aping Personhood’ in Kevin Curran (ed), Renaissance Personhood: Materiality, Taxonomy, Process (Edinburgh University Press 2020, available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctvss3wwb.10

• For commentary on the Hercules and Leo cases, see: A Chimp’s Day in Court: Inside the Historic Demand for Nonhuman Rights and Chimpanzee Rights Get a Day in Court, Brandon Keim, The Eye of the Sandpiper: Stories from the Living World (Cornell University Press 2017)

• For commentary on the Chucho cases, see: Macarena Montes Franceschini, ‘Legal Personhood: The Case of Chucho the Andean Bear’ (2021) 11 Journal of Animal Ethics 36, available at https://doi.org/10.5406/janimalethics.11.1.0036

• For a commentary on the Happy litigation and 2022 decision respectively, see: Lawrence Wright, ‘The Elephant in the Courtroom’ [2022] The New Yorker, available at https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/03/07/the-elephant-in-the-courtroom, and Justin Marceau and Angela Fernandez, ‘What Happy the Elephant’s Legal Case Tells Us About the Future of Animal Rights’ (Slate, 17 June 2022), available at https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/happy-the-elephant-lessons-for-the-future-of-animal-rights-law.html

4. Fundamental Rights and Personhood Litigation Beyond Habeas Corpus

• For commentary on several of the cases from India, see: Kushal Choudhary and Ayushi Sinha, ‘Animal Rights in India: A Mirage of Law?’ (2020) 1 Indraprastha Law Review 1, available at https://indraprasthalawreview.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ggsipu_uslls_ILR_2020_V1-I1-15-kushal_choudhary-ayushi_sinha.pdf, Gilles Tarabout, ‘Compassion for Living Creatures in Indian Law Courts’ (2019) 10 Religions 382, available at https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/6/383/pdf, Hardik Subedi and Arpan Banerjee, ‘Indigenising Animal Rights Beyond Judicial Rhetoric’ 1, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3736082, and Prakash Sharma and Partha Pratim Mitra, ‘Role of the Supreme Court in Developing the Concept of Animal Rights in India’ 1, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3637287

• For further commentary on the Nagaraja case, see: Uday Shankar, ‘Do Animals Have a Right Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India? Comment on Animal Welfare Board of India Case’ [2014] Bharati Law Review 63, available at http://elib.bvuict.in/moodle/pluginfile.php/147/mod_resource/content/0/Do%20Animals%20Have%20a%20Right%20Under%20Article%2021.pdf, and Jessamine Therese Mathew and Ira Chada-Sridhar, ‘Granting Animals Rights under the Constitution: A Misplaced Approach: An Analysis in Light of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja’ (2014) 7 NUJS Law Review 349, available at http://nujslawreview.org/2016/12/04/granting-animal-rights-under-the-indian-constitution-a-misplaced-approach-an-analysis-in-light-of-union-of-india-v-a-nagraja/

• For background on Article 21 of the Indian Constitution in Indian jurisprudence, see: SP Sathe, ‘Judicial Activism: The Indian Experience’ (2001) 6 Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 29 at 30-60, available at https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol6/iss1/3/, and AH Hawaldar, ‘Evolution of Due Process in India’ [2014] Bharati Law Review 107, available at http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/C64E2EB3-321D-470D-A4C8-0EE5E55BA21A.pdf

• For commentary on the Kaavan case, see: Saskia Stucki and Tom Sparks, ‘The Elephant in the (Court) Room: Interdependence of Human and Animal Rights in the Anthropocene’ (EJIL:Talk!, 9 June 2020), available at https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-elephant-in-the-courtroom-interdependence-of-human-and-animal-rights-in-the-anthropocene

• For commentary on the Swiss Primates Rights case, see: Charlotte E Blattner and Raffael Fasel, ‘The Swiss Primate Case: How Courts Have Paved the Way for the First Direct Democratic Vote on Animal Rights’ (2022) 11 Transnational Environmental Law 1, available at https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102521000170

• For an amicus curiae brief cited in the Estrellita case, see: Brief of amicus curiae The Brooks McCormick Jr. Animal Law & Policy Program at Harvard Law School and the Nonhuman Rights Project in Constitutional Court of Ecuador, Case No. 253-20-JH (2022), available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4251831

• For commentary on the Sandra litigation, see: Shawn Thompson, ‘Supporting Ape Rights: Finding the Right Fit Between Science and the Law’ (2019) 14 ASEBL Journal 3, available at https://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/id/eprint/44681/1/Woodford-P-44681-VoR.pdf

5. Conclusion

• For an analysis of habeas litigation conducted by Nonhuman Rights Project, applying insights from legal theory (formalism and indeterminacy), see: Ashleigh PA Best, ‘Property or “Penumbral” Persons? An Examination of Two Jurisprudential Approaches to the Nonhuman Rights Project Litigation’ (2018) 14 Journal of Animal and Natural Resource Law 33, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3865379

• For an argument about the utility and appropriateness of habeas corpus litigation as a means to free animals from harsh confinement, see: Justin F Marceau and Steven M Wise, ‘Exonerating the Innocent’ in Daniel S Medwed (ed), Wrongful convictions and the DNA revolution twenty-five years of freeing the innocent (Cambridge University Press 2018), available at https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316417119.018