Elephants are People Too?

Prof. Colb, who manages to find a connection with animal interests repeatedly, connects a controversial Supreme Court case involving the insanity case (some defense types were upset at the result; Kagan wrote the 6-3 opinion) to veganism. I'm not sure about the specific case involved. It's okay to say that, right?

Her own book was cited in a motion for case that has been going on for a while involving the interests of an elephant at the Bronx Zoo. I'm not sure if habeas is a suitable remedy here though the argument has my sympathies. As a judge cited noted: "The issue whether a nonhuman animal has a fundamental right to liberty protected by the writ of habeas corpus is profound and far-reaching. It speaks to our relationship with all the life around us. Ultimately, we will not be able to ignore it."

A tricky issue here is that the zoo here surely thinks they are protecting the interests of the elephant as much as other animals there. How far should that be taken? So, who should be chosen to defend animals' interests here? This does arise in the case for humans too, of course, such as let's say if an institution says they are taking the interests of a mentally incompetent person to heart but some advocacy group disagrees.