“You do have to ascribe some good faith,” said Mr. Butler, now a partner with the Washington law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. “The government uses presidential authority when they think it’s necessary and the law does not provide the specific authority they need. If there is a road that can be taken, operating according to statutes or putting people into the criminal justice system when that makes sense, they will do that.”

Like other administrations, even when this one alters course, it almost never concedes that its earlier actions were mistaken.

In the case of the eavesdropping program, the administration continues to maintain that it is free to operate without court approval. Its decision to submit to the secret court, administration lawyers said, was voluntary. At a briefing Wednesday, almost as an afterthought, a senior Justice Department official said, “There’s obviously an advantage to having all three branches involved.”

The announcement about the surveillance program came two weeks before a federal appeals court in Cincinnati was to hear the first appellate argument about the lawfulness of the program. Government lawyers now say that case is moot, but their claim is open to question.

The usual rule is that cases seeking relief in the future are indeed moot when the relief they seek is granted. But there is an exception, said David Cole, a lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has challenged the program in a separate lawsuit filed in New York.

He cited a series of Supreme Court decisions in which the defendants had voluntarily done what the lawsuits were seeking. Such cases are moot, the court ruled in 1968, for instance, only if it is “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.”

Because the administration has reserved the right to continue the program, Mr. Cole said, the courts should rule on whether it violated a 1978 law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Constitution.