Here is a new case based on the Hobby Lobby decision filed by a prisoner in Guantanamo, Imad Abdullah Hassan, claiming under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as used in the HL decision to contest the government's depriving him of the "right to participate in communal prayers...during Ramadan"
The article is here Hobby Lobby Aftermath: Does "Person" in RFRA Include a Guantanamo Bay Detainee?
US courts have decided that Gitmo prisoners are not "persons" under the RFRA. The motion filed for Mr. Hassan claims that the Hobby Lobby case "eviscerates" that decision.
The petition states that the Hobby Lobby decision makes it clear that "Petitioner, as a flesh-and-blood human being, is among the 'person[s]' protected by the RFRA."
Not being a lawyer I will leave it to you to click the link and read the article rather than make a mess of encapsulating it. There's not in a lot of legalize and is not particularly long.
I do have a query to lawyers, if Gitmo prisoners were declared to be not "persons" under RFRA as claimed in the Rasul case referred to, and HL makes them persons, do they not have religious protections under the law equal to the protections and rights of corporations, which are persons?
If Mr. Hassan is not legally a person then how can corporations be persons? Or can the Black Robed 5 of the Apocalypse now decide on a case by case basis who qualifies as an actual human being recognized as a "person" under our laws, or is that status to be even more arbitrary?
Are nonresident corporations persons, if nonresident prisoners and aliens aren't?