Petition for a writ of habeas corpus; MCR 3.303(B); People v McCager; Whether nonhuman animals (chimpanzees) are eligible for habeas corpus relief; Ten Hopen v Walker; Appellate jurisdiction over a denial of habeas relief; MCL 600.308(1) & (2)(c); MCR 7.202(6) & 7.203(A); Triplett v Deputy Warden; In re Brock; People v Fairman

Finding that it had jurisdiction to hear this appeal, and holding that chimpanzees are not “persons” eligible for habeas corpus relief, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of habeas relief to plaintiff-nonprofit animal welfare organization. Plaintiff petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of seven chimpanzees at defendant-private zoo, seeking their transfer to a sanctuary. The trial court summarily denied the petition on the basis that nonhuman animals are not “persons” for habeas purposes. On appeal, the court first resolved a longstanding split and found that it had jurisdiction to hear the case as of right, explaining that the Legislature’s 2016 amendments incorporate “the Supreme Court’s definition of ‘final judgment’ by reference” and thus, “a trial court’s denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is appealable as of right.” Turning to the merits, the court held that habeas protects a right of personal liberty reserved to legal “persons,” and at common law that category did not include animals. The “chimpanzees are animals, and as the common law authorities all make clear, animals—including wild animals, such as these chimpanzees—are treated as property.” The court cited settled Michigan authority that dogs “‘are the property of the owner as much as any other animal which one may have or keep.’” The court also rejected plaintiff’s request to change the common law, noting that only the Supreme “‘Court has the authority to overrule one of its prior decisions,’” and that “‘such a significant departure from Michigan law should only come from our Supreme Court[.]’”