The Republican-led US senate, yielding to Democratic pressure, ended its impasse over President George Bush's premier tool in the war on terrorism on Wednesday and voted to extend for six months key provisions of the Patriot Act set to expire in 10 days.
The temporary extension, approved without dissent, provides time to resolve differences over safeguards for civil liberties before making permanent most of the provisions Mr Bush deems vital to guard against attacks.
"I'm not going to let the Patriot Act die," senate majority leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said in explaining why he struck a deal after having earlier joined the White House in opposing such a move.
"This is a common-sense solution that gives the senate more time to craft a consensus bill that will promote our security while preserving our freedom," said senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat.
Each side had accused the other of trying to score political points in the high-stakes showdown. Initially passed after the attacks of September 11th, 2001, the Patriot Act expanded the authority of the federal government to conduct secret searches, obtain private records, intercept telephone calls and take other action in the effort to track down suspected terrorists.
Democrats and other critics have complained the law gave the government too much power to pry into the private lives of Americans and that proposed changes were inadequate.
Earlier on Wednesday, 52 of the 100 senators, including eight Republicans, signed a letter to Mr Frist in support of a Democratic-led bid to extend provisions, set to expire on December 31st, for just three months.
Senate leaders eventually agreed to the six-month extension. "This is a victory for the American people and proof that together, America can do better," said senate minority leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.
Mr Bush also faced a rare challenge from the judiciary yesterday when two courts questioned the legality of his expansion of presidential powers in the war on terror.
In a startling rebuke, a federal appeals court refused to allow the transfer of a terror suspect, Jose Padilla, from military to civilian custody and suggested that the Bush administration was trying to manipulate the judicial system.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported that judges of the secret court established under the foreign intelligence surveillance act (Fisa) had demanded a briefing from Bush administration officials on why they believed it was legal to bypass their authority and eavesdrop on telephone conversations and e-mails of American citizens without a warrant.
The Fisa court had been in charge of issuing such warrants until 2002 when Mr Bush signed orders enabling the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor domestic communications without court oversight. The judges reportedly now fear that the information thus obtained by the NSA was then being used improperly to obtain wiretap approvals from Fisa courts.
Such challenges to the legal philosophy of an administration are rare, and arrive at a time of intense debate on the White House contention that the war on terror justified an expansion of presidential power. The rebuke, from the fourth circuit court of appeal in Richmond, Virginia, was especially surprising because the judges have a reputation as conservatives, and have previously ruled in favour of the administration's efforts to hold Mr Padilla indefinitely without trial.