The ruling was immediately appealed, and the judge's order that the program -- which monitors phone calls, e-mails and faxes into and out of the United States where one party to the exchange is thought linked to the al-Qaida terror network -- be ended was stayed temporarily until a further hearing on Sept. 7.

Since the existence of the program was first acknowledged by President Bush after the New York Times revealed it Dec. 16 last year, the administration and congress have been involved in a complicated constitutional and political minuet.

A swiftly issued Justice Department White Paper argued the program had been ordered by President Bush as commander-in-chief, a military measure comparable to the battlefield detention of enemy combatants. Congressional scholars retorted that it was clearly a violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, designed by Congress as the exclusive means for authorizing the monitoring of the contents of Americans' electronic communications.

The process of legislating a basis for the program was further complicated in both chambers of Congress, when the job of writing the law was given to the judiciary committees.

But it is the intelligence committees that have been briefed on the program, leading some to accuse lawmakers of legislating in the dark.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Penn., said last month that he had reached a deal with the White House to create a legislative basis for the program under which the administration would voluntarily submit the program -- run from the National Security Agency's headquarters in Fort Mead, Md. -- to the special court set up by FISA.

The court, with access to the classified details of the program denied to the lawmakers drafting the bill, would rule on the constitutionality of the program.

But Specter, who was traveling in Asia this week and could not be reached for comment, has struggled and so far failed to get the bill out of his committee given fierce opposition from Democrats and only half-hearted support from some members of his own party.

The bill's defenders point to the proliferation of court challenges to the program as a reason to embrace Specter's approach, and say the Michigan judgment highlights the possibility of a multitude of overlapping and/or contradictory rulings in the cases.

"One of the challenges that we're facing is that we do have multiple litigation around the country on this issue," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told reporters Thursday. "I think it makes sense if we can get all of ... these questions before, you know, one central court, like the FISA court, and we can have one decision. I think that would be beneficial."

But civil liberties lobbyists have blasted the Specter bill for deleting the exclusivity provisions of FISA. "The bill would essentially make compliance with FISA optional," ACLU Legislative Director Caroline Fredrickson told United Press International.

"It opens the door for the president to do whatever (electronic surveillance) he wants," she said.

In the House, the GOP leadership, including the chairmen of both the intelligence and judiciary committees, has swung behind a bill that echoes the main provisions of the Specter legislation. But Democratic ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jane Harman, of California, warned against that approach, arguing that it was a continuation of Congress' abdication of its responsibilities.

"By failing to create a legislative framework for this program, the administration and Congress have punted this matter to the courts," she said in a statement. "Nobody should be surprised" that the results "contribute to the 'fog of law' that has surrounded this program."

Harman and other Democratic lawmakers who have been briefed on the program have said that its objectives could be achieved within the FISA framework.

Besides, argued Fredrickson, the court ruling showed that Specter's bill was on a hiding to nothing. "You can't authorize an unconstitutional program through legislation," she said.

Related Links
Learn about Cyberwar Systems and Policy Issues at SpaceWar.com