The biggest obstacle is that many judges have an implicit bias where nonhuman animals are seen as things. They erroneously believe that human and person are synonyms.
ROBERT STORACE: ‘A Florida-based animal rights group has filed a second habeas corpus petition on behalf of three elephants living in a Goshen petting zoo, arguing the animals are autonomous beings and have the right to bodily liberty. The Nonhuman Rights Project is seeking to remove Beulah, Minnie and Karen from the zoo and relocate them to a California-based sanctuary… The writ seeks for a judge, who has not been named yet, to serve the Commerford Zoo. If the petition is granted, the next step in the case is for the petting zoo to either appeal or come to court to answer why it is holding the elephants… Commerford does not have an attorney representing it in the matter. Wise said he’d immediately appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court if the petition is denied.
“The issue whether a nonhuman animal has a fundamental right to liberty protected by the writ of habeas corpus is profound and far-reaching,” Fahey wrote in his ruling. “It speaks to our relationship with all the life around us. Ultimately, we will not be able to ignore it. While it may be arguable that a chimpanzee is not a ‘person,’ there is no doubt that it is not merely a thing.” Wise said the biggest obstacle he faces, as an attorney, “is that many judges have an implicit bias against us. They have only lived in a legal system where nonhuman animals are seen as things. They erroneously believe that human and person are synonyms. We have to try to educate them”.’ SOURCE…