Still, Walker was concerned that the immunity law, which also authorized continuing the admitted eavesdropping, gives the attorney general too much power.儘管如此，沃克感到關切的是，法律的豁免權，其中還授權繼續承認竊聽，使總檢察長權力過大。

“It gives the attorney general carte blanche to immunize anyone who in his judgment or view should be immunized from possible liability,” Walker said from the bench. “這給總檢察長無限免疫人誰在他的判決或認為應該從可能的免疫責任， ”沃克說，從替補席上。

President-elect Barack Obama was among the majority in the Senate當選總統奧巴馬是在參議院的大多數 voting for投票 the immunity provision in July, as part of a broader domestic spying bill.豁免規定在7月，作為更廣泛的國內監聽法案。 At the close of a two-hour hearing here, Walker did not say when he would rule.在結束了兩個小時的聽證會在這裡，沃克沒有透露他將統治。

Richard Wiebe, an EFF attorney, said the immunity provision allowed for a Justice Department “camouflage” or a “smokescreen,” adding that it’s inherently unconstitutional to immunize  unconstitutional behavior.理查德娜韋博，一個EFF的律師說，豁免條款允許司法部“迷彩服”或“煙幕彈” ，認為這是違反憲法的本質免疫違憲行為。

He said the companies should face lawsuits for what he termed “mass unwarranted surveillance.”他說，企業應該面對的官司，他被稱為“大眾不必要的監視。 ”

“Congress recognized these cases created a risk to national security,” Nichols countered. “國會承認這些案件創造了一個危險的國家安全， ”尼科爾斯反駁。 “Congress has spoken.” “美國國會已經談過。 ”

At several points during the nearly two-hour hearing, Walker appeared to agree with the government.在幾個點在近兩個小時的聽證會上，沃克似乎同意與政府合作。 He noted that Congress often strips judges of their power to hear cases, like in 2005 when Congress immunized gun manufacturers from liability.他指出，美國國會經常帶他們的法官有權審理案件，如在2005年國會免疫槍製造商的責任。 He told Wiebe his complaint should be made with Congress.他告訴娜韋博他的申訴應與國會。

“I’m the wrong person to be making that argument to,” Walker said. “我錯了人是決策論據， ”沃克說。

Walker also wondered aloud whether he should decide the case before the Obama administration takes office in January.沃克也想大聲，他是否應該作出決定的情況之前，奧巴馬政府上任1月。

“It would be very, very unlikely for any future Department of Justice to decline to defend the constitutionality of the statute,” “這將是非常，非常不可能為今後任何司法部將下降到保衛憲法的規定， ” replied Nichols回答尼科爾斯 , who conceded the law was unprecedented. ，誰承認法律是前所未有的。

Congress passed the immunity measure after Walker dismissed the government’s claim that the lawsuits against AT&T, Sprint and others filed in 2006 should be dismissed because they threatened to expose state secrets.國會通過的措施的豁免權後，沃克解散政府聲稱起訴AT ＆ T公司，斯普林特和其它在2006年提出應駁回，因為他們威脅要揭露國家機密。 Walker’s decision was on appeal to the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals when lawmakers passed the immunity measure.沃克的決定上訴到位於舊金山的美國第九巡迴上訴法院時，議員們通過了免疫措施。 The appeals court, noting the legislation, dismissed the appeal as moot.上訴法院指出，立法，駁回上訴的意義。

Assuming for the sake of argument the carriers and the government engaged in illegal eavesdropping, Walker wondered aloud what would be wrong with the litigation being solely directed at the government.假設為論點運營商和政府從事非法竊聽，沃克想大聲什麼是錯的訴訟目前只針對政府。

“Let’s assume that’s exactly what happened. “讓我們假定這到底出了什麼事。 Then why shouldn’t the government just be on the hook for any harm or damage?” Walker asked.那麼為什麼不應該，政府只是對鉤的任何損害或破壞？ “沃克問。

Cindy Cohn, the EFF’s legal director, replied that the 9th Circuit could still throw out the cases against the government under the State Secrets Privilege.辛迪，該基金會的法律主任，回答說，第九巡迴仍有可能拋出的情況下對政府的國家機密特權。 In any event, she said, the telecoms should be held responsible.在任何情況下，她說，電信應該承擔責任。 “Carriers have an independent duty to protect their customers.” “運營商有一個獨立的關稅，以保護他們的客戶。 ”