Gitmo detainees' lawyers invoke Hobby Lobby decision in court filing

[kpete]

Source: Al Jazeera

Gitmo detainees' lawyers invoke Hobby Lobby decision in court filing


The detainees' lawyers said courts have previously concluded that Guantanamo detainees do not have "religious free exercise rights" because they are not “persons within the scope of the RFRA.”

But the detainees’ lawyers say the Hobby Lobby decision changes that.

"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," the lawyers argued in court papers.

Read more: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/5/hobby-lobby-guantanamo.html

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. I tip my hat to them.

May the repercussions of this godawful decision come fast and furiously, to the point at which it becomes obvious to everyone just how godawful a decision it was.

[avebury]

3. Agreed. Let SC ruling meet unintended consequences. nt

[avebury]

2. But but but

the Hobby Lobby ruling only applies to Christians! No other religious practices need apply.

[LiberalElite]

12. And only certain Christians at that! nt

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

26. Yup. Only the ones who worship that Republican Jesus. You know, the white Jesus who hates

the poor and makes his favorite people super wealthy by magic. The Jesus who, for some odd reason, has the only hippie hair they've ever approved of. The Jesus who opposed gubmint healthcare, pensions, etc...

[24601]

13. Heading over now to our local Jewish Deli for some pulled pork BBQ.

[Arkansas Granny]

4. I'd be willing to bet good money that those who were so thrilled

with the HL ruling weren't expecting that.

[rickford66]

5. Can the court reverse a decision within a short period?

Does it need another case to be able to reverse? Just asking?

[former9thward]

27. Reverse what?

The HL decision? Why would they reverse? The Gitmo lawsuits will work their way through the system and at some point the SC will decide whether to review the case.

[rickford66]

31. That's sorta what I asked.

If the fallout proves disastrous, even for the wingnuts, does the court need to have another case before it to have an excuse to reverse HL or can they reverse it anytime?

[former9thward]

33. The court will not reverse HL.

Decisions take years to reverse, sometimes decades. In terms of fallout the suit described in the OP is very speculative and in my opinion will not get very far. HL is a family owned corporation that is not publicly traded and the court applied the Bill Clinton Religious Freedom Restoration Act to those specific circumstances.

[rickford66]

34. I'll try again.

Does the SC need another case before it as a prerequisite to reverse a decision? Not this case in particular, but any case. Or can the court just up and reverse a previous decision?

[onenote]

40. In theory, the Court could grant a timely filed motion for rehearing.

But I cannot recall any instance where the Court did so with respect to a case that it had decided on the merits. The Court can, in a subsequent case involving a new set of facts, overrule a prior decision, but that also is relatively rare. More often, the Court will use a subsequent case to narrow a prior case, sometimes so much so that the prior case is effectively limited to its facts, but without actually overruling the prior case.

[happyslug]

43. But the Court can pick up another case on the same subject and reverse itself.....

The Court did that in the Legal Tender Cases of 1870 and 1871. In 1870 the Court ruled it was unconstitutional for the Congress to make Paper Money legal tender, in 1871 the Court reversed itself and in a separate case, said Congress could make paper money legal tender, reversing its prior holding. Two new justices were the key to the reversal. The first case was decided 4-3, the second case was decided 5-4.

[happyslug]

42. Can be just few years, the 1894 decision on Income taxes was "Reversed" in just two years.

Last edited Tue Jul 8, 2014, 01:50 PM - Edit history (2)

In 1894 the US Supreme Court ruled the Federal Income Tax violated the Federal Constitution. Two years later the Same Supreme Court ruled the Inheritance Tax was constitutional for the Court had ruled in Constitutional in 1864. The problem was the 1864 decision was based on a 1862 Decision that ruled a Federal income Tax was constitutional (and would remain on the books till 1874 when it was repealed with the retirement of the Civil War debt).

Thus within two years the Supreme Court was ruling its prior decision had no basis in law, but it took Congress till 1909 to get around to passing another Income Tax. That was delayed by saying a Constitutional amendment was needed and proposing one (the GOP was hoping the delay in passing the amendment would give them time to defeat the Income Tax when it came back up). The Constitutional amendment was passed and an New Income tax was passed. It was challenged up to the US Supreme Court. In 1912 the Court ruled the amendment was NOT needed, an Income Tax had always been constitutional thus even without citing the then new amendment the Income Tax was constitutional.

Thus within two years the Court was hinting it had made a bad ruling. Thus within two years they was a push to pass another Income Tax, but none was passed till 1912. Thus within 18 years the Court had reversed the ruling that the Income Tax was unconstitutional and said the intervening constitutional amendment had not been needed for the Income Tax had always been constitutional.

In the case of the Legal Tender Cases, the reversal was within a year:

Or I did forget about the Legal Tender Cases of 1870 and 1871. In 1870 the US Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that it was unconstitutional for the Federal Government to print money. In 1871, after President Grant had appointed two new Justices to the Supreme Court, the Court Ruled 5-4 that the Federal Government COULD print money.

More on the Legal Tender Cases:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Tender_Cases

The First Legal Tender Case (1870)

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/75/603/case.html

The Second Legal Tender Case (December 1870 term decided in 1871):

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=79&invol=457

The Legal Tender Cases is noted for the reversal of the constitutional of Paper money based on President Grant appointing two new justices that happened to be enough to reverse the decision made the previous year. Grant denied he appointed them wanting to reverse the decision, but it is clear his appointment caused the reversal.

[The Magistrate]

6. I Like This, Ma'am

I like it a lot....

[Ash_F]

7. woops. /nt

[herding cats]

8. This should be interesting. Are the detainees people who should be allowed their religious rights?

Or does that only apply when it's a corporation seeking to stymie the Obama administrations ACA?

If, under our law, Hobby Lobby is a ‘person’ with a right to religious freedom, surely Gitmo detainees are people too,” said Cori Crider, an attorney for the detainees and a director at Reprieve.

It's an excellent observation.

[dhill926]

9. and Pandora's box...

is now open for business...

[ReRe]

11. The worms are crawling out of the can. ;-0 n/t

[Ruby the Liberal]

10. Awesome.

May this be the first of many on this despicable ruling. Corporations are people capable of political thought and religious belief? Bring all comers! Lets start with the states that preemptively outlawed Sharia Law. Someone's rights just may be being violated there.

Lets just see how far the tentacles from the HL case go...

[mazzarro]

23. That is very interesting thought

"states that preemptively outlawed Sharia Law" may be in for a big fight indeed!

[Ruby the Liberal]

30. Theocracy at its finest

But that is apparently what 5/9 of SCOTUS wants - as long as it's their ideological brand of theocracy...

[pfitz59]

14. As predicted.....

Let fun begin

[blkmusclmachine]

15. Sorry, only old, rich, white, Conservative, Christian, Republican men can invoke "religious freedom"

as a GET OUT OF JAIL FREE Card.

No others can qualify.

Sorry!!!

[KauaiK]

16. Ooooo boy This is going to get richer and richer.

And I thought Citizen's United was bad.

[littlemissmartypants]

17. Wait WHAT

Kicking.

[AllyCat]

18. But does it apply to female detainees?

Since we are no longer equal citizens under the law, I suspect they will continue to be held.

[mackerel]

19. Maybe I had this wrong but I thought

the justices said Burwell v. Hobby Lobby could never be cited by anyone ever ever! And they're the Supreme Court, so if they say just this one ruling is in a special Do Not Cite box it has to be true!

[mazzarro]

25. Well, the special "Do Not Cite" may mean

That if any case is appealed on that ground to the SC they will, probably, not take on the case. That does not stop defence attorneys from citing it in their cases and some judges will entertain it and some will not.

The SC taking on appeals on that ground or not, this will continue to irk them anyhow!

[former9thward]

29. There is no language like that in the case.

The things that are posted here ....

[onenote]

41. +1

[former9thward]

28. Nonsense.

There is no such language in the case.

[cynzke]

37. Agree....On Tuesday......

the Court ordered lower courts to reopen similar cases and retry them based on the SC ruling. Why, so the Plaintiffs pressing their lawsuits could cite the SC's ruling.

[Hekate]

20. Holy....cow. nt

[Gothmog]

21. This appears to be some good lawyering

I love this argument

[GliderGuider]

22. Wonderful!!!! Let the legal pretzel-bending begin! nt

[JDPriestly]

24. The Court in Hobby Lobby (my husband called it Rabbit Habbit this morning -- he couldn't

remember Hobby Lobby -- I think Rabbit Habbit works very well, don't you?) justified accepting the sincerity of Hobby Lobby's religious belief on the ground that the RFRA accepts the sincerity of the religious belief of prisoners. So in a way, the Hobby Lobby decision of Alito specifically acknowledges (granted not as essential to the ruling) that prisoners are persons for purposes of the RFRA.

This should be an interesting issue to follow. Poor old Alito. Not a particularly smart guy apparently.

[DeadLetterOffice]

32. I will admit that of all the potential ripple effects of the HL ruling...

... this is NOT one I saw coming.

[sendero]

35. It seems that the utter idiocy..

... of this decision is going manifest itself in record time. The SCOTUS just hamstrung their own reputation, although I suspect it will take them a while to figure that out being stupid as a bag of hammers and all.

[cynzke]

36. Well Now......

are the lower courts going to kick the can on this case? Why take on this fiasco? Pass and let the SC deal with the mess they made?

[malthaussen]

38. Well, first they'll need to incorporate...

This is cute, but since we already ruled once that the Gitmo prisoners (why is the weasel-word "detainees" allowed?) are not persons, we shouldn't have to do so a second time.

-- Mal

[eppur_se_muova]

39. Easy out -- SCOTUS will rule that women are not persons with the scope of the law. nt