If a corporation is a person, why is an animal no more than a chair?

In light of the decision by the Supreme Court the other day in Citizens United regarding the rights of corporations to make campaign contributions without restriction, I felt compelled to republish a post from early last year:

Stephen M. Wise discusses the ways society shapes the development of the law in connection with the rising awareness that animals are not merely “things”:

Is it up to society to force a change in the law? Or will the law change society?

The law both leads and follows society. The legal system changes through the decision of judges or by legislatures enacting statutes. You saw this, for example, in the anti-slavery amendments to the U.S. Constitution in the 19th century and the numerous civil rights statutes of the 20th century. But the way the law changes and the way society changes are connected. People who try to change the law also depend upon changes in societal values, as well as upon scientific discoveries. In recognition of this, Rattling the Cage is crammed with reports about scientific discoveries on the nature of the cognition of chimpanzees and bonobos of the last 20 or 30 years. These discoveries form the springboard from which I can argue for their rights and personhood.

How do you think our view of animals will develop in the next 20 years?

It is going to develop in a complex way. First, a hierarchy of nonhuman animals will continue. Though nonhuman animals are considered legal things today, society does not view all nonhuman animals in the same way. Some we clearly value more than others. Even though chimpanzees don’t have any legal rights, we no longer euthanize them after they are no longer useful in medical experiments, as we do, say, to white mice. This fact both results from and drives the coming legal personhood of Great Apes. We’re beginning to see this not only in the U.S., but throughout the West. Westerners are also increasingly valuing their companion animals and I see increasing protection for them. The animals whom we thoughtlessly consume for food are being subjected to worse and worse conditions in the U.S. But an opposite trend is rising in [parts of] Europe. I think we will see the European trend expand even as factory farming in the U.S. increases. However, within the next 10 years, the American factory farming industry is going to learn how it has greatly overstepped and miscalculated just how much abuse of nonhuman animals used for food people are willing to accept. Stir in the environmental degradation that is its inevitable consort and there is going to be a backlash that will drive factory farming in the U.S. in the direction that Europe has taken and will, perhaps, drive at least some of it out of business.

If a corporation is a person, why is an animal no more than a chair?

Stephen M. Wise discusses the ways society shapes the development of the law in connection with the rising awareness that animals are not merely “things”:

Is it up to society to force a change in the law? Or will the law change society?

The law both leads and follows society. The legal system changes through the decision of judges or by legislatures enacting statutes. You saw this, for example, in the anti-slavery amendments to the U.S. Constitution in the 19th century and the numerous civil rights statutes of the 20th century. But the way the law changes and the way society changes are connected. People who try to change the law also depend upon changes in societal values, as well as upon scientific discoveries. In recognition of this, Rattling the Cage is crammed with reports about scientific discoveries on the nature of the cognition of chimpanzees and bonobos of the last 20 or 30 years. These discoveries form the springboard from which I can argue for their rights and personhood.

How do you think our view of animals will develop in the next 20 years?

It is going to develop in a complex way. First, a hierarchy of nonhuman animals will continue. Though nonhuman animals are considered legal things today, society does not view all nonhuman animals in the same way. Some we clearly value more than others. Even though chimpanzees don’t have any legal rights, we no longer euthanize them after they are no longer useful in medical experiments, as we do, say, to white mice. This fact both results from and drives the coming legal personhood of Great Apes. We’re beginning to see this not only in the U.S., but throughout the West. Westerners are also increasingly valuing their companion animals and I see increasing protection for them. The animals whom we thoughtlessly consume for food are being subjected to worse and worse conditions in the U.S. But an opposite trend is rising in [parts of] Europe. I think we will see the European trend expand even as factory farming in the U.S. increases. However, within the next 10 years, the American factory farming industry is going to learn how it has greatly overstepped and miscalculated just how much abuse of nonhuman animals used for food people are willing to accept. Stir in the environmental degradation that is its inevitable consort and there is going to be a backlash that will drive factory farming in the U.S. in the direction that Europe has taken and will, perhaps, drive at least some of it out of business.

There’s nothing radical about Wise’s position. The law already recognizes that artificial entities such as corporations are legal “persons” and are therefore, among other things, entitled to the protections accorded people under the Bill of Rights.

A new breed of lawyers

As the New York Times reported two years ago, a couple in New York City rescued three pigeons in Central Park and gave them a home in their apartment for years. When the building went co-op, however, the new landlords sued to evict the couple under a city ordinance outlawing chickens, cows, “or any pigeon except Antwerp or homing pigeons.” Maddy Tarnofsky, a new breed of lawyer, came to their rescue. First, she wondered, how could the landlord prove the pet birds weren’t Antwerp or homing pigeons? He couldn’t; there is no biological difference between Antwerp pigeons or any other pigeons, and, a veterinarian testified, the birds could likely be trained to home as well.  The court dismissed the eviction proceeding.   

As the Times goes on to explain, the growing field of animal law is not without its critics: “Many veterinarians, for example, fear that pet lawyers could become the animal-world equivalent of medical malpractice lawyers, reaping large juryawards and contributing to a rise in malpractice insurance costs. The American Veterinary Medical Association formed a task force on animal law last year and came out squarely against redefining the legal status of pets.”

Many animal law lawyers, however, want to distinguish themselves from animal rights advocates: “they are concerned primarily with getting the legal system to acknowledge that animals have an intrinsic value beyond mere property, because of the bond between pets and their owners.”

Not that animal rights advocates are anything to fear.

ADDENDUM: As Stefani points out in the comments, Christopher Green had demonstrated in his groundbreaking study, “The Future of Veterinary Malpractice Liability” (pdf), the fears manifested in the American Veterinary Medical Association’s opposition to redefining a pet as something more than the equivalent of a chair are baseless.  I’m not surprised.  Playing to the public’s fears of personal injury lawyers is an old and baseless trick.

Thanks to Washoe, Animal Law is even entering legal education

My former colleague at Case Western Reserve, Kathy Hessler, is the Director of the Animal Law Clinic at Lewis and Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon.  The clinic, in which students under the superivision of professors represent clients in real cases, specializes “in animal protection issues including cases against those who have harmed or injured animals, custody disputes, activist defense, “dangerous” dog hearings, pet trusts, and assistance for non-profit organizations.”  Under Professor Hessler’s direction, it will also begin to focus on larger cases focusing on law reform with respect to animal issues.

Sometimes you need a chimpanzee to move the law forward

Traditionally, the law has treated animals as personal property. In other words, your dog is no different to you than one of your chairs. There have been slight modifications — animal cruelty laws, most notably — but for most purposes your dog is no more than chattel. From the New Yorker — ironically enough in an article about Leona Helmsley and her dog, to whom she left $12 million in trust — comes the story of how the growing field of animal rights began.

It all started with Washoe, the first chimpanzee to learn sign language to communicate with humans. When there came a time Washoe was going to be sent off for animal testing, Victoria Bjorklund, a lawyer, wanted to set up a trust and appoint a guardian for Washoe. The problem was that New York law only permitted the appointment of guardians for a “person with a disability.” As the New Yorker explains:

[Bjorklund and her colleagues] argued that “the mental, emotional, sociological, and biological characteristics” of Washoe and the other chimps “warrant their treatment as persons” entitled to representation. The lawyers submitted affidavits from such animal experts as Jane Goodall, who said that “chimpanzees are biochemically closer to humans than they are to any other of the great apes.” According to the brief in the case, the chimps “are capable of rational thought, communication, and other higher cognitive functions,” justifying their treatment as the legal equivalent of minors or disabled humans. In a 1997 decision, the surrogate of Nassau County agreed and appointed a guardian to administer the trust for the benefit of the chimps. “That trust was then respected by the State of Washington, where Washoe lived,” Bjorklund said. “We think it was the first trust ever established for the benefit of specific nonhuman primates.”