A chimpanzee is not a legal person, a New York appeals court has decided, saying that no matter how great apes are, they cannot give back to society in a way that merits human rights.

Rejecting an animal rights group’s bid to expand the definition of “legal person” to chimpanzees, a five-judge panel found that although the animals are autonomous beings they do not take part in the societal bargains that guarantee rights like bodily freedom.

In October the attorney Steven Wise, representing the Nonhuman Rights Project, made a case that a privately owned chimpanzee named Tommy was unlawfully imprisoned in New York, and should be transferred to a sanctuary in Florida. Wise argued that chimpanzees, having shown self-awareness, intelligence and empathy, are close enough kin to humans as to deserve some rights.

But while the court granted that chimpanzees share much with humans and are not simple objects, like chairs or tables, justice Karen Peters wrote in the court’s decision that apes cannot contribute to society or suffer legal consequences of their actions.

“Needless to say, unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions,” Peters wrote.

Wise’s cases on behalf of Tommy and three other chimpanzees are the first to argue that habeas corpus can apply to a non-human. The writ would have forced Tommy’s owner, Patrick Lavery, to prove to the court he could justify Tommy’s imprisonment.

From his home in Florida, Lavery told the Guardian that he found the idea of giving Tommy certain human rights “a ridiculous statement, in my opinion”.

Lavery has declined to appear at any of the case’s hearings and learned of the court’s decision from the Guardian. He defended the small building in which he keeps Tommy as “an excellent home” with TV, several rooms and outdoor enclosures. “He’s happy there,” Lavery insisted.

“He’s not being illegally detained. He’s legally there, and of course we have to abide by the rules. Tommy’s got an excellent home, and he never knew what it was like to have a home where he was loved and cared for before.”

Wise did not immediately respond for a request for comment. He has said he will take the case to New York’s highest appeals court.

Peters wrote that the courts have not left Tommy and other chimpanzees defenseless, pointing out that New York has a ban on keeping primates as pets. She said that Wise could lobby the state to pass laws granting greater protections of chimpanzees.

Wise’s suit does not allege that Lavery has broken the law in his treatment of Tommy, and Lavery said that he follows all federal and state regulations. Lavery said he found the central premise of Wise’s suits mystifying.

“From what I understand, after he frees the chimps he’s gonna go after the elephants, he’s got other species on his list,” he said. “But they’re not gonna be free at another sanctuary.



“It’s different if an animal’s been pulled out of the wild, but an animal that’s raised domestically, by humans, they’re used to being fed and cleaned up after.”

In many of his arguments, Wise notes that habeas corpus was used in the 18th century to help free a slave, a comparison Lavery considered inappropriate.

“If a slave means you have somebody wait on you and feed you and clean up after you and do all that, to me that’s not the definition of a slave, in my opinion,” he said.

Wise has also argued chimpanzees should have legal “visibility” as children do, but Peters was careful to include a riposte to that line of thinking.

“To be sure, some humans are less able to bear legal duties or responsibilities than others. These differences do not alter our analysis, as it is undeniable that, collectively, human beings possess the unique ability to bear legal responsibility,” Peters wrote.

The appellate court’s decision upholds a state judge’s 2013 ruling. Before a separate court on Tuesday, Wise argued on behalf of a deaf chimp named Kiko, who lives with his owner in Niagara Falls.