I've never done a "breaking" story, but this one comes almost wholly from Al Jazeera.
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.”The news writers at Al Jazeera America stand clear of editorial opinion. We do not. Every dissenting voice to Hobby Lobby said that it would be used and used and used. Justice Ginsberg concluded that it was a decision of sweeping breadth, and so it has seemed to everyone else: corporate persons with only close holding (51% family holding) getting religious exercise, such exercise being defined in novel ways to exempt from practically any properly formed legislation?
But the detainees’ lawyers say the Hobby Lobby decision changes that.
Alito assured the world that it simply couldn't lead to unintended consequences, like exempting blood transfusions, but there was nothing in that "couldn't."
Here, we asked "What if a corporation used it for Sharia?" Barring someone attempting to encode outright religious discrimination, this is the world Hobby Lobby created -- a pre-1920 world.
Thanks to johnny wurster in the comments, here is an excellent analysis of the motion, with an explanation of how the new case is a way of getting at the courts' prior definition of "person" to exclude detainees and the effect of Hobby Lobby's glib expansion.