Last December, the Supreme Court ruled (in Boumediene) that Guantanamo prisoners may file suit claiming a denial of their constitutional rights in the facility. That important decision affirmed the principle that the Constitution's guarantee of fundamental liberties casts a wide net, and that government may not perform an end-run around them just because a U.S. detention facility lies outside our borders. In so doing the court revived a case (Rasul) brought by 4 British detainees claiming a violation of religious freedom rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The government argued – and previous courts had agreed – that detainees do not qualify as "persons" for the purpose of RFRA (despite the objections of the BJC and other groups in an amicus brief in the case).
The DC Court of Appeals was forced to revisit their dismissal of the suit in light of the Supreme Court's ruling, but determined yet again that the case should be thrown out, arguing that the Supreme Court's ruling did not impact their initial decision that the plaintiffs were not covered by RFRA.
That decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, which yesterday declined to re-hear the case, despite the plea of Attorney Eric Lewis:
Lewis warned of the danger of allowing the appeals court decision to stand. “Respondents appear willing to let the final word on torture and religious abuse at Guantanamo be that government officials can torture and abuse with impunity and will be immune from liability for doing so,” he wrote.
…
“This case cries out for review by this court,” Lewis told the justices in his brief. “There can be no ambiguity or confusion about the right not to be tortured by US government officials.”
The Court's decision leaves standing the DC Appeals Court ruling, effectively ending the matter.
