A federal district court ruling that throws out the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program on suspected terrorists could — and should — lead to a revised program that is much more in step with the rule of law and the Constitution.

The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of Detroit, said the warrantless monitoring of telephone calls and e-mails violates constitutional rights of free speech and privacy. She also said the program is an overreaching of presidential authority.

This decision has been appealed and probably will go all the way to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, all parties in the suit have agreed to a stay pending a hearing before a federal appeals court.

The White House was adamant in its response to the ruling, saying its surveillance program is firmly grounded in law and critical to our effort to combat global terrorism. The only communications that are monitored are international telephone calls or e-mails originating from or coming into the United States where one of the parties is suspected of terrorist ties, the administration said.

That may be so. But the plain fact is that there is a system for such surveillance in place today that provides at least minimal legal checks and balances when the oversight involves U.S. residents. This is the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act passed in reaction to illegal wiretaps by the Nixon administration.

It requires approval from a special court for such eavesdropping, although in emergency situations the approval can be granted up to 72 hours after surveillance begins.

Surely, that provides enough flexibility for any administration to conduct reasonable intelligence work. Rather than tie this matter up in endless litigation and legal appeal, the Bush administration should work with Congress to come up with a surveillance program that is workable, reasonable and legal.