Happy the Elephant is giving animals their day in court

Are humans the only animals that deserve rights? A groundbreaking animal protection case addressing this question will go before New York state's highest court in 2022. It could transform the future for an elephant named Happy and create momentum for change for billions of other animals.

Happy the elephant was born in 1971, probably in Thailand, where she was captured as a baby and sold into captivity. She has spent more than 40 years at the Bronx Zoo in New York City.

Since 2006, Happy has been held in a sort of solitary confinement, alone in what has been ranked one of America's 10 worst zoos for elephants. Animal protection groups have expressed concern that Happy's isolation and poor living conditions put her at risk for serious mental and physical health ailments.

A growing body of evidence suggests that elephants like Happy, living in captivity where mental, social and physical stimulation is limited, suffer shorter, lower-quality lives. Elephants are intelligent, social beings. In the wild, elephants like Happy live in close-knit matriarchal communities and form lifelong bonds.

In 2005, Happy was the first elephant to pass the mirror self-recognition test, considered an indicator of self-awareness, previously thought to be unique to humans, chimpanzees and dolphins.

In January of 2021, an animal advocacy organization called the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) filed a writ of habeas corpus, or claim of unlawful detention, on behalf of Happy. Their goal is to re-home Happy to a sanctuary that can provide a higher quality of life.

New York state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, has agreed to hear Happy's case in 2022.

The decision in Happy's case could be the first in the nation to grant an animal limited "human rights." Historically, habeas corpus petitions have only been considered on behalf of human beings held against their will. Happy's case poses the controversial legal question: Is an animal a "thing" or a "person"? Legal personhood implies that an individual qualifies for certain rights. Some entities other than human beings, such as corporations, have already been granted some rights of personhood.

More importantly, Happy's case has the potential to make space for animal issues in public discourse. The plight of exploited animals has yet to cross the threshold into a mainstream social and political concern. Many people share the misguided notion that we cannot tackle animal issues without sacrificing human progress. In fact, more often than not, our well-being is interconnected.

It's hard to comprehensively address animal protection without considering farm animals, especially in Minnesota, where animal agriculture is one of our main industries. In Minnesota, hogs alone far outnumber humans. The global biomass of mammals is composed of 60% farm animals, 36% humans and only 4% wild animals. Captive wild animals like Happy make up a tiny fraction of the total.

Most mammals on the planet — those raised for food — face living conditions much worse than Happy's situation. The vast majority never see sunlight or feel grass, and spend their lives suffering dirty, crowded conditions, usually without access to proper veterinary care or socialization. Like most states, Minnesota's animal cruelty laws include exemptions for standard agricultural practices. Yet some farm animals rank among the most intelligent species on the planet.

Intensive animal agriculture is not just an issue of ethics, but threatens the very future of humanity. Farming animals for food is a leading cause of climate change, pollution, deforestation and loss of biodiversity. The use of animals for food is also one of the primary sources of global pandemics, and has already precipitated the rise of deadly viruses including HIV, mad cow, SARS, H1N1 and COVID-19.

Improving the standard of care for farm animals and reducing demand for animal products is key to transforming global animal welfare and protecting human existence as we know it.

Some historians and animal advocates are calling Happy's case the most important animal rights case of the 21st century. A ruling in favor of Happy in 2022 would mean a compassionate final chapter to one elephant's tormented life and would demonstrate that an animal can be entitled to limited legal personhood.

Regardless of the outcome, Happy's case has the potential to spark meaningful discourse on animal protection. Humankind's ability to survive climate change and dodge global pandemics may rely upon how we change — or fail to change — our relationship to animals, especially farm animals.

When we take animal issues seriously, everyone wins.

Julie Knopp is president of Compassionate Action for Animals in Minneapolis.