Hawaii’s Highest Court Agrees To Hear Elephants’ Bid for Freedom

For 44 years, an Asian elephant named Mari has circled a 1.5-acre enclosure at the Honolulu Zoo, a concrete-edged patch of grass and shade cloth, flanked by roads and the noise of one of the Pacific’s most crowded urban corridors. Vaigai joined her in 1992. Both were captured from the wild. According to Smithsonian National Zoo data, Asian elephants in their natural habitat typically walk up to 4 miles a day across home ranges that can span hundreds of square miles. In Honolulu, they have each other and a space not much larger than a suburban lot.That captivity is now at the center of a case that could reshape how American law treats animals. On June 10, the Hawaii Supreme Court agreed to hear a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of Mari and Vaigai by the Nonhuman Rights Project, a national civil rights organization that works to secure legally recognized fundamental rights for nonhuman animals. Hawaii will become only the third state in which the highest court has taken up whether a nonhuman animal can hold a legal right to liberty — a question to which no American court has yet answered yes. “The environment can’t be changed,” the litigation director at the Nonhuman Rights Project, Elizabeth Stein, tells The New York Sun. “You can’t give them their society. They should be matriarchs of a family, and that’s all been taken away from them.”So, what would it take for a court to finally rule differently? Decades of confinement, years of failed litigationThe Nonhuman Rights Project, or NhRP, filed its habeas corpus petition on October 31, 2023, asking an Oahu circuit court to require the Honolulu Zoo to justify Mari and Vaigai’s confinement. The court dismissed the case, ruling that elephants do not qualify as persons under Hawaii’s habeas corpus statute.The Intermediate Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, and the NhRP filed for certiorari in April 2026. Hawaii’s Supreme Court agreed June 10 to hear it, with oral arguments expected as early as this fall. That legal fight plays out against years of documented problems at the zoo itself.The elephant enclosure contributed to the 42-acre facility beingnamed among the 10 worst zoos for elephants in North America four times — in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2016 — by In Defense of Animals. Documented violations included inadequate shade, brackish water, insufficient habitat enrichment, and rocks that posed risks to the elephants’ feet.The zoo used bullhooks — a tool that controls elephants through pain and fear — on the animals until 2016, the same year it lost its Association of Zoos and Aquariums accreditation, which it did not regain until 2020. A $12 million exhibit expansion was completed in 2011.Following the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case, the zoo director, John Berry, said in a statement that while the zoo could not comment on pending litigation, “we want to emphasize our commitment to exceptional elephant care, as exemplified by the work of our dedicated team of professional keepers and veterinarians, who work diligently to provide the highest standard of care to our two elephants, Mari and Vaigai.”Mr. Berry underscored that the two elephants “have been together at the Honolulu Zoo for 34 years and have thrived under our care in Honolulu’s tropical environment, which most closely matches their home environment.”The Nonhuman Rights Project’s legal argument rests not on statutory grounds but on the common-law writ of habeas corpus — judge-made law that, advocates say, is not bound by fixed statutory definitions of personhood.Seven elephant cognition and behavior scientists filed declarations in support of the petition, drawing on decades of field research. Elephants, their evidence shows, grieve. They teach. They recognize themselves in mirrors, something only a handful of species on earth can do, and they maintain social bonds that outlast human friendships.“If existing animal welfare laws were sufficient to protect elephants from the profound harms of captivity, the NhRP would have no reason to bring this case, and these experts would have no reason to support it,” the senior staff attorney at the Nonhuman Rights Project, Jake Davis, tells the Sun.A professor at UCLA School of Law, Taimie Bryant, agrees that “there is no doubt that elephants and the societies in which they live naturally are intellectually and emotionally sophisticated, self-aware, and participatory in complex social life.”“The evidence has been sufficient and repeatedly documented for a long time; no more is needed,” she continues. “It is clear that zoos are impoverished environments for them.”Ms. Bryant says the problem is not a lack of evidence; it is a failure of public awareness, which zoos have little incentive to address.“Zoo goers often do not know, and zoos are unlikely to educate them about it,” she observes. “Zoo visitors do not know that they are seeing the signs of an animal who has lost their mind or is in deep distress.”In other words, what looks like a docile elephant slowly pacing its enclosure may actually be an animal exhibiting signs of severe psychological damage — behavior that wildlife scientists recognize as a consequence of chronic captivity, but that most visitors have no way of interpreting on their own.A two-vote marginThe Hawaii case arrives in the immediate aftermath of the Nonhuman Rights Project’s most prominent defeat. In June 2022, the New York Court of Appeals rejected, 5-2, an effort to use the common law writ of habeas corpus to free an Asian elephant named Happy from the Bronx Zoo.The majority held that extending habeas corpus to animals would have “an enormous destabilizing impact on modern society.” Happy was euthanized on May 26, 2026, at the age of 55 — never having left the zoo where she had lived for nearly 50 years. A necropsy revealed severe arthritis and large, inoperable uterine tumors. Patty, the Bronx Zoo’s only surviving elephant at 57, now lives there alone.The New York case also produced two dissents that legal advocates have studied closely. Judge Rowan Wilson argued in his dissent that habeas corpus had been “vigorously used to challenge the detention of slaves when, under law, they were deemed chattel,” and that courts have both the authority and the obligation to adapt the common law as society’s understanding of elephants’ cognitive and emotional lives evolves.”In a separate dissent, Judge Jenny Rivera argued that “if humans without full rights and responsibilities under the law may invoke the writ to challenge an unjust denial of freedom, so too may any other autonomous being, regardless of species.”“If two more justices had joined the two dissents, the views of the dissent would have prevailed,” Ms. Bryant tells the Sun. “Happy would have been moved to a sanctuary instead of dying in the Bronx Zoo. It was a matter of numbers, not legal or ethical validity.”That arithmetic is precisely what makes Hawaii different. What may distinguish this case is not the elephants’ suffering — experts say it is no less severe than Happy’s — but whether the justices who hear the case will be open to the reasoning that New York’s dissenters laid out.“We can surmise that the case is advancing in Hawaii because the NhRP believes that the precise facts and the legal landscape in Hawaii, including the legislative and judicial climate, hold advantages to other jurisdictions,” the director of the Animals and Society Research Initiative at the University of Victoria Faculty of Law, Maneesha Deckha, tells the Sun.Put plainly: the Nonhuman Rights Project isn’t arguing that Mari and Vaigai have suffered more than Happy did. It is betting that Hawaii’s Supreme Court justices may be more willing than New York’s were to follow the logic of those two dissents to its conclusion, and that in a case decided by a simple majority, the composition of the bench can matter as much as the strength of the argument.The co-founder and co-director of ElephantVoices, Joyce Poole, has a pointed view on why courts — not legislatures — may be the more honest venue.“Elephants are captured and held captive for economic reasons — people stand to profit,” says Ms. Poole, who holds a Ph.D. in elephant behavior from Cambridge University and submitted a declaration in support of the case. “I wonder whether the legislatures are free enough from undue influence from lobbyists?”It is not an idle concern. Zoo industry associations have employed professional lobbyists to actively oppose animal welfare legislation, including bills that would have restricted public contact with elephants.The federal Animal Welfare Act, the primary law governing zoo animals, has been widely criticized for setting only minimal welfare requirements and for years of weak enforcement. Courts, by contrast, answer to legal argument and precedent — not to industry pressure. That asymmetry, in Ms. Poole’s view, is precisely why judges may better settle the question of elephants’ freedom than lawmakers.What a ruling could — and could not — changeNot everyone sees the case as a promising evolution of the law. A professor of law at Pepperdine Caruso School of Law, Richard Cupp, argues that the question of animal legal personhood belongs in legislatures, not courtrooms.“The number of court decisions rejecting animal legal personhood has continued to grow since the New York decision, further highlighting the case’s weakness,” Mr. Cupp tells the Sun.He warns that a favorable ruling could trigger a cascade of difficult line-drawing questions.“Some activists would view such a victory as punching a hole in the legal ‘wall’ between humans and animals, with the hope that it would lead to personhood for a much broader group of animals,” Mr. Cupp continues. “The line-drawing questions regarding where to assign legal personhood for animals are among the theory’s many serious weaknesses.”Critics of the case have also raised a more fundamental concern: that a win for Mari and Vaigai could open a door with no clear way to close it. If a court can find an elephant’s confinement unlawful through habeas corpus, the argument goes, what stops every captive animal from making the same claim?“Two detainees obtaining relief based on the unique facts and circumstances of their case does not mean every confined animal is suddenly entitled to release,” the senior staff attorney at the Nonhuman Rights Project, Jake Davis, tells the Sun.Ms. Bryant, the UCLA law professor, also says a ruling for Mari and Vaigai would be legally binding only for them; it would not automatically apply to other animals at the Honolulu Zoo, to elephants elsewhere, or to any broader class of captive animals. Other jurisdictions could choose to follow or not.“A writ of habeas corpus has a very narrow legal effect, as it is focused on the unjust captivity of specific individuals,” she notes.The legal theory may be narrow. Yet, the stakes for two elephants are not.The Nonhuman Rights Project’s immediate goal is to have the Supreme Court reverse the lower courts’ dismissal, opening the way for a full hearing on the merits. If it ultimately succeeds, the organization hopes to relocate Mari and Vaigai to an accredited elephant sanctuary — or potentially a pre-release facility that could ease their transition back toward their native habitat. Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled.“This is not easy,” Ms. Stein says, “but it’s something I’m really hoping that the Supreme Court does the right thing — that there were just tremendous errors that the lower courts have made.”

Hawaii’s Highest Court Agrees To Hear Elephants’ Bid for Freedom

More from the New York Sun

The War Over War Powers

Antisemitism Is the Root of Mamdani Socialism, and It’s Destroying New York City

Why Rod Stewart Mattered So Much to a Teen Boy in Care

More from the New York Sun

The War Over War Powers

Antisemitism Is the Root of Mamdani Socialism, and It’s Destroying New York City

Why Rod Stewart Mattered So Much to a Teen Boy in Care

France’s Greens Propose Paid Days Off Instead of Air Conditioning To Respond to Heat Waves

Musk Loses Trillionaire Title as SpaceX Shares Tumble

Chevalier Wins, Democrats Panic, and Letitia James Fears Mamdani Has Given Party Its MAGA Moment

James Comey Builds All-Star Legal Team To Thwart Renewed Effort by Trump DOJ To Convict Him

Rubio Tries To Ease Gulf Allies’ Fears of Capitulation to Tehran