Judge Henderson wrote that the Act was to be interpreted by analyzing the constitutional meaning of its language, because it was designed to restore constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion. Since it had ruled last year, in other detainee cases, that those at Guantanamo have no constitutional rights, they are not covered by RFRA because they are not persons in the constitutional sense, she wrote. (The ruling that the detainees have no constitutional rights is now under review by the Supreme Court in two pending cases on detainees legal rights, Boumediene v. Bush, 06-1195, and Al Odah v. U.S., 06-1196). No Constitutional rights, not on US soil. This would probably change in a Huckabee administration. Terrorist lawsuits brought by legal aid (government funded) lawyers.