Ms. Taylor was ordered to appear before the Senate committee on July 11. Ms. Miers, who was briefly a nominee for Supreme Court justice, was told to appear before the House panel the following day.

The committees had already voted to authorize such subpoenas, so it was not surprising that they decided today to go ahead and issue them. Still, the action stepped up the political confrontation over the dismissals, and over the general performance of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and the state of the Justice Department.

So far, the White House has said it will not make any current or former officials available to testify before the panels on the matter except in private interviews, with no transcripts kept. The lawmakers have disdained that arrangement as unacceptable.

"By refusing to cooperate with Congressional committees, the White House continues its pattern of confrontation over cooperation, and those who suffer most in this case are the public and the hard-working people at the Department of Justice," Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Senate committee, said in a statement today.

Representative John D. Conyers of Michigan, the chairman of the House committee, said the subpoenas were "a demand on behalf of the American people."

"The breadcrumbs in this investigation have always led to 1600 Pennsylvania," Mr. Conyers said, referring to the White House by its street address. "This investigation will not end until the White House complies with the demands of this subpoena in a timely and reasonable manner, so that we may get to the bottom of this."

The White House reacted quickly today to the subpoenas, arguing that the committees could easily obtain all the facts they need through interviews and relevant documents, but that the Democratic chairmen "are more interested in drama than facts," as Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman, put it in an exchange with reporters.

The latest development follows the Senate Democrats’ attempt to pass a symbolic "no confidence" resolution against Mr. Gonzales. That attempt was thwarted on Monday when Mr. Gonzales’s critics fell seven votes short of the 60 needed to clear a procedural hurdle. That effort, too, was dismissed by the White House as a publicity stunt.

Attorneys say U-S Representative William Jefferson is facing legal bills that could reach two million dollars to fight complex public corruption charges that include bribery, racketeering and money laundering.

As of yesterday, the New Orleans Democrat had 136-thousand dollars in a legal defense account, a net debt in his campaign election fund and a congressional salary of 165-thousand, 200 dollars a year.

Election and white-collar defense attorneys in Washington say Jefferson's trial could last two to three months.

Evidence against him fills eight file cabinets.

Lawyers say a defense of that complexity and length easily could push Jefferson's defense costs into seven figures.

Campaign lawyer Ken Gross says the case involves a lot of witnesses and the case has a lot of tentacles.

A federal grand jury in Virginia indicted Jefferson last week on 16 counts of public corruption.

The indictment alleges Jefferson used his influence as co-chairman of the House Africa Investment Trade Caucus to broker deals in various African nations.

Jefferson maintains his innocence.

Republicans did not defend him, but most voted against moving the resolution ahead.

Short of impeachment, Congress has no authority to oust a Cabinet member, but Democrats were trying anew to give him a push. Gonzales dismissed the rhetorical ruckus on Capitol Hill, and President Bush continued to stand by his longtime friend and legal adviser.

The judges on Monday said they lacked jurisdiction under the strict definition of those eligible for trial by military tribunal under a law enacted last year.

The Defense Department "will make a determination as to whether it's appropriate to file an appeal or not," Fratto said. "It does show that the system is taking great care to be within the letter of the law."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who was traveling in Asia, said he was not familiar with the details of the ruling.

"If it is as described, that's the reason we have a judicial process in all of this and we'll have to take a look at it and see what the implications are," he said.

Setback for administration
The rulings did not affect U.S. authority to indefinitely hold the terrorism suspects detained at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in southeast Cuba.

But it was the latest setback for the Bush administration's efforts to put the Guantanamo captives through some form of judicial process.

"In no way does this decision affect the appropriateness of the military commission system," Fratto said.

The surprise decisions do not spell freedom for the detainees.

Salim Ahmed Hamdan of Yemen and Omar Khadr, a Canadian who was 15 when he was arrested on an Afghan battlefield, were the only two of the roughly 380 prisoners at Guantanamo charged with crimes under a reconstituted military trial system.

Experts blame haste

Defense attorneys and legal experts blamed the rush by Congress and President Bush last year to restore the war-crimes trials after the U.S. Supreme Court threw out the previous system, declaring it unconstitutional. In a remarkable coincidence, it was Hamdan's lawsuit that wound up in the Supreme Court.

In both of Monday's cases, the judges ruled that the new legislation says only "unlawful enemy combatants" can be tried by the military trials, known as commissions. But Khadr and Hamdan previously had been identified by military panels here only as enemy combatants, lacking the critical "unlawful" designation.

"The fundamental problem is that the law was not carefully written," said Madeline Morris, a Duke University law professor. "It was rushed through in a flurry of political pressure from the White House ... and it is quite riddled with internal contradictions and anomalies."

Prosecuting attorneys in both cases indicated they would appeal the dismissals. But the court designated to hear the appeals - known as the court of military commissions review - doesn't even exist yet, said Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan, chief of military defense attorneys at Guantanamo Bay.

Army Maj. Beth Kubala, spokeswoman for the Office of Military Commissions that organizes the trials, said "the public should make no assumption about the future of military commissions."

She said they will continue to operate openly and fairly and added that dismissals of the charges "reflect that the military judges operate independently."

She declined to comment on how the Office of Military Commissions planned to respond to the setbacks, saying she didn't want to speculate.

Military prosecutors declined to appear before reporters after their cases collapsed.

The distinction between classifications of enemy combatants is important because if they were "lawful," they would be entitled to prisoner of war status under the Geneva Conventions.

A Pentagon spokesman said the issue was little more than semantics.

Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon said the entire Guantanamo system deals with people who act as "unlawful enemy combatants," operating outside any internationally recognized military, without uniforms or other things that make them party to the Geneva Conventions.

"It is our belief that the concept was implicit that all the Guantanamo detainees who were designated as 'enemy combatants' ... were in fact unlawful," Gordon said.

But Morris said the Military Commissions Act defines a lawful enemy combatant, in addition to a uniformed fighter belonging to a regular force - as "a member of a militia, volunteer corps or organized resistance movement belonging to a state party engaged in such hostilities and who meets four additional criteria."

A group of seven House members, led by Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro, D-3rd District, agreed, declaring in a statement, "The Supreme Court effectively rolled back efforts to ensure equal pay."

The court's decision, they said, "completely ignores the reality of the workplace and is based on the illogical conclusion that a victim of pay disparity will be able to document - despite the typical office secrecy over income - a discriminatory difference in the salaries within six months. It completely overlooks that a victim may be afraid to file a complaint."

They are pushing the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would allow victims the right to back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for intentional wage discrimination. They also will try to ensure that people who have been victims of wage discrimination would not be penalized because of time limitations.

In addition, House and Senate members - including some men - will introduce new legislation to clarify the intent of the Civil Rights Act in regard to pay discrimination.

The act says that any charge must be filed within 180 days "after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred." The Supreme Court ruled this week that the 180 days begins on the date an employer makes the initial pay-setting decision. But opponents want the time to run from the date an employee gets a check with discriminatory pay, making it easier for potential victims to seek help.

"That's what the campaign will be all about for him -- persuading a significant portion of the party that he truly is the right leader for a set of issues and an outlook on the world," said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster.

By tomorrow, aides said, the actor and former senator from Tennessee will incorporate a committee called Friends of Fred Thompson and will begin actively raising money for a White House bid. He launched the fundraising effort this week in a conference call with more than 100 supporters, whom he has dubbed his "First Day Founders."

Within the next few weeks, advisers say, a real campaign will take shape, even without a final decision or formal announcement. A Web site will be posted, campaign headquarters will be selected, and a staff will be hired. The signature red pickup truck from Thompson's Senate campaigns will be dusted off.

A senior adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because Thompson has not formally announced his intentions, said he is confident about the future.

"This is not someone who is awkward in his own skin," the adviser said. "This will not be a D.C.-centric campaign. He has natural assets that appeal to conservatives, but at the same time he is not threatening to independents and Democrats."

Thompson will give a speech in Virginia this weekend and is scheduled to appear next month on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno." An announcement could come as soon as the first week of July, using the hoopla of the national holiday as a backdrop. But those plans are in flux and could change, two sources said yesterday. One source said a formal announcement is likely to come "around that time."

As a lawmaker, Thompson exuded a folksy charm that supporters say could help him capture the attention of many Republican primary voters. His decades of movie and television appearances give him an immediate national presence that rivals that of the others in the campaign. Thompson has played District Attorney Arthur Branch on "Law & Order," but he told the television show he will not return in September, although he did not indicate any political intentions, producer Dick Wolf said in a statement.

Thompson, a senator from 1994 to 2003 and a guest host on Paul Harvey's show on ABC Radio, has already begun to reach out to party conservatives. He has been outspoken in his support of the war in Iraq and blasted the immigration deal reached in the Senate. He recently used a spat with liberal filmmaker Michael Moore to draw attention on conservative blogs, issued a Web video featuring himself chomping a cigar and chiding Moore for going to Cuba to film part of his new documentary.

Republican strategists predicted yesterday that Thompson will get an immediate boost in the polls by entering the race. "I think overnight he becomes the alternative," one strategist said.

The National Restaurant Association (NRA), which represents an industry that employs approximately 12.8 million workers in 935,000 locations, issued a statement Thursday criticizing the minimum wage increase, saying that it "will cost our industry jobs... and that the current $4.9 billion tax package" would not provide sufficient relief for employers most impacted. The NRA claims that the industry "lost more than 146,000 jobs" and delayed the employment of 106,000 new employees as a result of the 40-cent minimum wage increase in 1997.