The DC Circuit decided that former captives at Guantanamo could not sue under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because ...

they are not "persons".

That's right.  They are not "persons", and therefore not entitled to sue.

Granted, and to be a lot fairer than any Republican ever would be in any argument, the distinction was that they were not "persons covered by the act", a distinction similar to the whole "how far does the right of habeas run" chicanery Bushco put us through with the first iteration of Rasul, and then Hamdan and so on.  But the effect is the same.  Here's what the Court said - it only takes two paragraphs:

This leaves the RFRA claim in Count 7. Our vacated opinion held as a matter of statutory interpretation that plaintiffs were not protected "person[s]" within the meaning of RFRA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a). Boumediene could not possibly have altered - retroactively - the meaning of RFRA. We will summarize our analysis in Rasul I.

In enacting RFRA, Congress intended to incorporate the standard governing free exercise claims that prevailed before the Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). See City of Boerne v.  Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 515 (1997). The aim was to restore what, in Congress's view, is the free exercise right the Constitution guaranteed -- in both substance and scope. We therefore held that the term "person" as used in RFRA should be read consistently with similar language in  Constitutional provisions, as interpreted by the Supreme Court at the time Congress enacted RFRA. Rasul I, 512 F.3d at 670-72. Congress legislated against the background of precedent establishing that nonresident aliens were not among  the "person[s]" protected by the Fifth Amendment, Eisentrager, 339 U.S. at 783, and were not among "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. at 269. See also Cuban Am. Bar Ass'n v. Christopher, 43 F.3d 1412, 1428 (11th Cir. 1995) (Cuban and Haitian refugees at Guantanamo Bay lack First Amendment rights). Reading RFRA in line with these precedents, we held that plaintiffs are not protected "person[s]" under this statute. Rasul I, 512 F.3d at 672. We reinstate that judgment today.

Congratulations, Mr. Obama.  Your Justice Department has managed to make a whole class of people into ... not persons.