SEATTLE – A three-judge federal appeals court grilled government and civil rights lawyers while entertaining arguments here Wednesday concerning dozens of dismissed lawsuits alleging the National Security Agency illegally vacuumed American's internet traffic and telephone calls from every major U.S. telecommunication company.

But after nearly three hours of back-and-forth debate that included harsh questioning by the judges of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, it was unclear whether the court would reinstate the cases that allege rampant, warrantless spying. And despite the import of the court's pending decisions, Judge Harry Pregerson, a President Jimmy Carter appointee and one of the nation's longest-serving jurists, joked about the subject matter.

"I'm used to electronic surveillance, I live with it every day," Pregerson said as the roughly three dozen members of the gallery laughed out loud. Pregerson appeared via a live video feed from Los Angeles and was not present here at the William Kenzo Nakamura United States Courthouse.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's largest federal appeals court, is based in San Francisco and covers nine western states, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. There are 26 active judges on the circuit. The court hears cases with three-judge panels, which are generally chosen at random. Here are the judges on the National Security Agency wiretapping lawsuits:

Harry Pregerson, 87

Appointed to U.S. District Court in Los Angeles by President Lyndon Johnson

Appointed to 9th Circuit by President Jimmy Carter

Law School: University of California, Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law, 1950

Based in Los Angeles

Michael Daly Hawkins, 66

Appointed to 9th Circuit by President Bill Clinton

Law School: Arizona State University, 1970

Based in Phoenix

M. Margaret McKeown, 60

Appointed to 9th Circuit by Clinton

Law School: Georgetown University Law Center, 1975

Based in San Diego

One set of cases on appeal, originally brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in 2006, targets the nation's telecoms. The lawsuit alleges the carriers' alleged complicity in the electronic spying had breached federal wiretapping laws and even their own terms of service agreements with customers. Another round of litigation, brought by the EFF and others, targets the government, accusing federal officials of violating the Fourth Amendment rights of anybody who so-much as sent an e-mail in the years following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. (Some of the lawsuits allege the dragnet began before 9/11.)

"Who was or who was not surveilled, that's classified ... What any particular carrier did or did not do, that's all classified."All the cases were previously dismissed by a San Francisco federal judge on a variety of grounds, including a decision that Americans had no legal standing to bring a challenge against the government. Many of the cases were dismissed under a law passed by Congress in 2008 that authorized the president, in this case George W. Bush, to give retroactive legal immunity to any telephone companies that cooperated with the alleged warrantless surveillance.

"We think this gives too much power to the executive. The Constitution has limits as to how much power," Cindy Cohn, the EFF's legal director, told the panel.

Judge Michael Daly Hawkins wondered aloud, "If these plaintiff's don't have standing, who would?" Judge M. Margaret McKeown said the "concern" she had was that the suits' dismissal "cuts off the plaintiffs ... from ever pursuing a claim."

Michael Kellogg, the carriers' attorney, argued the immunity legislation was the right thing for the nation's carriers, which could go bankrupt under the weight of defending the accusations in court.

"Congress made a considered decision that it would be unfair if they were subject to potential suits and ruinous liability," Kellogg said.

Department of Justice Attorney Thomas Bondy urged the panel of judges to abide by Congress' wishes. He repeated over and again that litigating the allegations would expose national security secrets.

"Who was or who was not surveilled, that's classified," he said. "What any particular carrier did or did not do, that's all classified."

The EFF, a San Francisco-based civil rights group, believes the surveillance dragnet continues unabated today, in effect granting the government unfettered access to Americans' private lives. The merits of the allegations have never been litigated, and the EFF is hoping the appeals court reinstates the cases toward that end.

Judge Pregerson asked Department of Justice attorney Thomas Byron III, "What role would the judiciary have if your approach was adopted. We just get out of the way, is that it?"

"We think the district court's order of dismissal can be upheld," Byron replied.

The The New York Times first exposed the NSA's warrantless wiretapping of international phone calls to and from Americans in 2005. A former AT&T technician named Mark Klein later produced internal company documents – first published by Wired.com – suggesting that the NSA was surveilling internet backbone traffic from a secret room at an AT&T switching center in San Francisco, and similar facilities around the country. Klein's evidence formed the basis of one of EFF's lawsuits, Hepting v. AT&T.

First the Bush administration, and then the Obama administration, fiercely fought the lawsuits. Both administrations trotted out the state secrets privilege, a McCarthy-era doctrine that generally allows the government to quash a lawsuit, even if the government is not a defendant, whenever litigating the case could damage national security and expose state secrets. In an rare defeat for the government, in 2008 U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco allowed the Hepting lawsuit to go forward despite the state secrets claim.

After Walker's blockbuster decision, Congress passed legislation in 2008 immunizing the telecommunication companies from the lawsuits. The legislation, which then-Sen. Barack Obama voted for, also granted the government the authority to monitor Americans' telecommunications without warrants if an American was communicating with somebody overseas and suspected of terrorism – effectively legalizing at least one facet of the alleged NSA dragnet.

Because of the immunity legislation, Walker dismissed the case against the carriers in 2009, saying Congress had spoken.

"Congress has manifested its unequivocal intention to create an immunity that will shield the telecommunications company defendants from liability in these actions," Walker ruled.

The EFF then sued the NSA, which is not protected by the immunity law. Walker dismissed that case, Jewel v. NSA, last year on the grounds that the lawsuit amounted to a "general grievance."

Kevin Bankston, an EFF senior staff attorney, told the judges that the government should be held accountable, and that Jewell should be reinstated. "We'd love to get to the merits," he said.

The court did not indicate when it would rule.

Photos: Jon Snyder/Wired.com