As reported in the Tribune a few weeks ago, Judge James Bentivegna dismissed a habeas corpus petition brought by an animal legal rights group challenging the continued detention in Litchfield of three elephants at the Comerford zoo and farm. Initially, I joked about the case as probably many did—“wow, I bet they won't forget that!” I viewed the whole thing as a farce and a waste of time. I was wrong.

I was intrigued enough to look further into the case because one of the grounds of dismissal was that the matter was “wholly frivolous.” For ethics nerds like me, hearing a judge call an argument or position frivolous is kind of like blood in the water. There's a schadenfreude that draws us to the troubles of others. I figured the case might add something to the law of frivolity, especially if there were repercussions for bringing such a claim. After a lot of reading and thinking (OK, I really do have to get out more…), I think the case has a point.