The holding and express reasoning in Hobby Lobby makes Rasul a dead letter. Rasul relied on Supreme Court case law that predated Smith and excluded nonresident aliens from the scope of constitutional protections guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Hobby Lobby wholly undermines Rasul by holding that the pre-Smith Supreme Court case law does not restrict the scope of “person[s]” protected by the RFRA, which Congress intended to exceed the scope of constitutional protection as set forth in the pre-Smith case law. Hobby Lobby instructs that the scope of “person[s]” protected by the RFRA is to be determined by reference to the definition of “person” in the Dictionary Act, not by reference to the pre-Smith case law.
... The Guantanamo Bay detainees, as flesh-and-blood human beings, are surely "individuals," and thus they are no less "person[s]" than are the for-profit corporations in Hobby Lobby or the resident noncitizens whom Hobby Lobby gives as an example of persons to whom the RFRA must apply.
A hearing on the emergency motions is scheduled for tomorrow morning.