If corporations are people with religious rights, why aren’t Guantanamo Bay detainees?
That’s the central premise of a new lawsuit, filed on behalf of two Guantanamo Bay detainees last week.
“If, under our law, Hobby Lobby is a ‘person’ with a right to religious freedom, surely Gitmo detainees are people too,” Cori Crider, the detainees’ lawyer said in a statement.
Lawyers for Ahmed Rabbani of Pakistan and Emad Hassan of Yemen have filed for the temporary lifting of a ban that prevents their clients from attending communal Ramadan prayer, which they’re barred from attending because they have undergone a hunger strike. The suit, filed just three days after the Supreme Court’s controversial Hobby Lobby ruling, argues that the decision expands the legal definition of a “person whose religious free exercise rights are protected by the RFRA [Religious Freedom Restoration Act],” the law Hobby Lobby’s lawyers used to argue that the company’s religious beliefs should prevent them from having to support birth control insurance coverage.
“Hobby Lobby makes clear that all persons — human and corporate, citizen and foreigner, resident and alien — enjoy the special religious free exercise protections of the RFRA,” Rabbani and Hassan’s filings read.
Two previous D.C. Circuit decisions have ruled that Guantanamo Bay detainees are not “persons” under RFRA protection, but the detainees’ lawyers hope the Hobby Lobby case might have changed the rules. Reprieve, the U.K.-based NGO representing the detainees, took their cases earlier this year, filing once before to try and get their communal prayer rights restored and to end the force-feeding used on the two prisoners.









