I’ve been reading a bit about the U.S. District court decision declaring warentless wire taps unconstitutional, and there’s one detail that I don’t understand about the case. It’s this:

The government argued that the program is well within the president’s authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

I don’t understand how proving a constitutional right requires revealing state secrets — this kind of argument should not rely on concrete examples and evidence, it should rely on abstract principles, laws and the constitution. Am I wrong in this understanding? I can only assume that the administration is keeping its powder dry for an appeal, where they can anticipate a friendlier court.