"Is it the government's position that when our country is engaged in a war that the power of the executive when it comes to wiretapping is unchecked?" Judge Harry Pregerson asked a government lawyer in a tone of incredulity and frustration.

Gregory G. Garre, a deputy solicitor general representing the administration, responded that the courts have a role, though a limited one, in assessing the government's assertion of the so-called state secrets privilege, which can require the dismissal of suits that could engender national security. Judges, he said, must give executive branch determinations "utmost deference."

"Litigating this action could result in exceptionally grave harm to the national security of the United States," Garre said, referring to the assessment of intelligence officials.

The three judges, on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, were hearing arguments in two combined lawsuits challenging the highly classified surveillance programs, which the administration said were essential in combatting international terrorism. The appeals were the first to reach the court after dozens of suits against the government and telecommunications companies over NSA surveillance were consolidated last year before the chief judge of the federal trial court here, Judge Vaughn R. Walker.

The appeals concern two related questions that must be answered before the merits of the challenge can be considered: whether the plaintiffs can clearly establish that they have been injured by the programs, giving them standing to sue; and whether the so-called state-secrets privilege requires dismissal of the suits on national security grounds.

Though the questions are preliminary, the impact of the appeals court's ruling may be quite broad. Should it rule for the government on either ground, the legality of the NSA programs may never be adjudicated.

All three judges — appointed by Democratic presidents — indicated that they were inclined to allow one or both cases to go forward for at least limited additional proceedings before Walker.

The two cases deal with different secret programs, but are broadly similar. One, a class action against AT&T, focuses mainly on allegations that the company provided the NSA with its customers' phone and Internet communications for a vast data-mining operation. The lawyers in the AT&T case call that program, which the government has not acknowledged, a "content dragnet."

The second case, brought by an Islamic charity and two of its lawyers against the government, concerns a targeted program which the Bush administration calls the Terrorist Surveillance Program. The program, which has since been submitted to a secret court's supervision, bypassed court warrants to monitor international communications involving people in the United States.

Attorneys representing the students had hoped that if they won in court, tuition would be lowered to pre-2003 levels, when in-state tuition and fees for undergraduates averaged about $2,500 a year. Undergraduate in-state tuition and fees for the coming school year averages up to $4,949. advertisement 

Tucson attorney Paul Gattone, who represents the students, said he was disappointed in the ruling. He worries that students from middle-income families will be hurt the most by rising tuition because they aren't eligible for as much financial aid as students from lower-income families.

"Certainly we can assume tuition rates are not going to go down any time soon, and they probably will continue to climb," he said. He has not decided whether he will ask the court to reconsider the decision.

The state Board of Regents has contended Arizona's tuition is low in comparison to many state universities. The regents have kept tuition and fees in the lower one-third of a sample of 50 public U.S. universities. The average tuition and fees at those universities is $6,635 a year, according to a regents survey.

Taylor had appealed to the full appeals court after a three-judge panel ruled in June that Missouri’s execution procedure is not cruel and unusual punishment. That ruling had overturned another judge’s decision to ban executions until the lethal injection process was reformed.

Taylor’s attorney said Wednesday that she will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. And while the high court accepts only a small percentage of the thousands of cases it is asked to review each year, “this has a better shot than most,” attorney Ginger Anders said. “It’s an extremely important issue, one that is going on in a lot of states.”

A Kansas City federal judge’s order last year to suspend executions could be lifted within a week, freeing the Missouri Supreme Court to set execution dates.

But if Taylor asks, and the appeals court agrees, the moratorium could continue while the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether to consider his case.

'Step toward resolution'
Brian Hauswirth, a state Corrections Department spokesman, called the ruling “another step toward resolution of the legal challenges to lethal injection.”

Taylor’s case had prompted a federal judge last year to place a moratorium on executions in Missouri. U.S. District Judge Fernando Gaitan Jr. said he wanted to be sure that the three-drug injection method did not cause risk of pain and suffering.

Gaitan wanted the state to involve a doctor specializing in anesthesia, but the state has been unable to find such a doctor willing to participate in the executions.

The three-judge appeals panel on June 4 reversed Gaitan’s ruling, saying the state’s execution protocol “is designed to ensure a quick, indeed a painless, death.”

But Taylor argued the panel focused too narrowly on the protocol rather than how it is implemented, or any accidents or mistakes by staff that may result.

Days after the June 4 ruling opened the way for restarting executions in Missouri, Attorney General Jay Nixon asked the state Supreme Court to set execution dates for 10 condemned inmates — more than one-fifth of the state’s 44 death row inmates.

Drugs contested

The debate centers on the three drugs used in executions. The argument is that if the initial anesthetic does not take hold, a third drug that stops the heart can be excruciatingly painful. But the inmate would not be able to communicate the pain because of a second drug that paralyzes him.

Missouri is among at least nine states that had put executions on hold as they consider whether lethal injection is inhumane.

Taylor was convicted of killing a 15-year-old girl in Kansas City in 1989 after kidnapping her from a school bus stop. He was hours away from being executed in February 2006 when the procedure was halted.

Missouri hasn’t executed an inmate since convicted killer Marlin Gray was put to death in October 2005.

Simpson has maintained his innocence and vowed never to pay the jury award voluntarily.

Last week, Goldman's estate, led by his father Fred Goldman, secured rights to Simpson's aborted book, "If I Did It," containing his hypothetical first-person account of the murders, after a long legal fight with the now-bankrupt company set up to collect Simpson's reported $1 million advance.

In their latest bid to collect on the civil judgment, the Goldmans went after any licensing fees, royalties or other compensation Simpson was paid or will be paid for his name and likeness in the new video game, "All-Pro Football 2K8."

The game is published by Take-Two Interactive Software (TTWO.O), the company behind such controversial video game titles as "Grand Theft Auto" and "Manhunt 2," which was banned in Britain and given the equivalent of an adults-only rating in the United States.

TEAM OF "ASSASSINS"

"All-Pro Football" features the likenesses of 240 retired National Football League players, including Simpson, whom game users can assign to fictional teams with preset names, one of which is "The Assassins."

As previewed on a Web site for video game promotional trailers, the team mascot is a hooded figure who makes stabbing motions with a large knife in the end zone when the Assassins score. Simpson does not have to be assigned to that team, but he was in a clip shown on the Game Trailers Web site.

Take-Two has declined to say how it obtained rights to Simpson's name and likeness but said he was compensated. The company also has issued a statement saying the knife-wielding Assassins mascot is "not specifically associated with O.J. Simpson, and the game does not promote any such connection."

Under the order issued by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Gerald Rosenberg, any earnings to Simpson that "have been paid, are due or may be due in the future" for use of his image and likeness in the video game must be turned over to the Goldman estate.

Moreover, Simpson was ordered to turn over copies of his Take-Two contract and related documents, as well as any other financial deals he has yet to disclose.

"Basically he (the judge) said to Mr. Simpson, 'Pay up,"' Goldman attorney David Cook said after the hearing.

Ronald Slates, a lawyer for Simpson, argued against the order, saying the California court lacked jurisdiction over his client, who has lived in Florida for several years.