But after Reichel parried questions from other justices, Rehnquist still did not seem satisfied with his answers.
"Do they [the police] simply have to take her word as to the facts?" he asked.
"Not at all," Reichel replied.
During the second case, Cutter v. Wilkinson, No. 03-9877, the issue was whether the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which Congress enacted in 2000 to ensure that prisoners are allowed to practice their religion behind bars, amounts to unconstitutional official favoritism for religion.
When acting Solicitor General Paul D. Clement rose to defend the statute, the first question again came from Rehnquist, who noted that the statute limits the rights of states to run their prisons.
Clement responded that this was appropriate, because the law affected only state prisons that accept federal funds.
But Rehnquist persisted, pointing out that, in a 1997 case in which the court had struck down a similar statute, "didn't we say the Congress couldn't rewrite the Constitution in a way different from what we had said?"
Clement insisted that this case is different, because the law in question is contingent on states' acceptance of federal money, whereas the previous law had been enacted under Congress's authority to punish discrimination.
