CBS filed a motion yesterday seeking the dismissal of a lawsuit by Dan Rather, who says that the network violated his contract by giving him too little to do after it forced him off the evening news in 2005 and that its investigation of the news segment about President Bush’s National Guard service was politically biased.

“This lawsuit is a regrettable attempt by plaintiff Dan Rather to remain in the public eye, and to settle old scores and perceived slights, based on an array of far-fetched allegations,” the network said in a 30-page brief filed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan. The papers represented the network’s first response to the suit Mr. Rather filed on Sept. 19.

Referring specifically to Mr. Rather’s assertion that CBS and its senior executives had sought to do the White House’s bidding in commissioning an incomplete investigation of the National Guard segment, the network said: “CBS and its executives are not now, and never have been, out to get Dan Rather.”

Mr. Rather agreed to step down from the “CBS Evening News” in March 2005, a year earlier than he had planned, after the network said it could not authenticate documents that had been used as evidence in the segment about Mr. Bush’s time in the Air National Guard.

In response to arguments that CBS gave Mr. Rather insufficient airtime after he left the “CBS Evening News” — first on the weeknight edition of “60 Minutes” and later on the flagship Sunday edition — the network cited a “pay or play” clause in his contract. “As long as Rather was paid the specified compensation, CBS had no obligation to give him any on-air exposure,” the network said.

In an accompanying statement, the network called Mr. Rather “one of the most important figures in the history of journalism” and said it was “mystified and saddened” by the suit.

A spokesman for Mr. Rather’s lawyers released a statement last night that said: “It is unfortunate that CBS is trying to delay discovery of the facts and a trial of Dan’s claims. We are confident the court will reject these tactics and allow the case to go forward.”

The court also said the administration failed to include in the new rules heavier trucks driven as commuter vehicles, among several other deficiencies found.

Judge Betty Fletcher wrote that the administration "cannot put a thumb on the scale by undervaluing the benefits and overvaluing the costs of more stringent standards."

Charles Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said the administration was in the process of reviewing the decision. "We will consider all of our options," he said.

California and 10 other states, two cities and four environmental groups sued the administration after it announced the new fuel economy standards last year.

"It's a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration and its failed energy policy," California Attorney General Jerry Brown said.

The court ordered the administration to draw up new rules as soon as possible, but automakers complained Thursday they're already deep into developing light trucks through 2011 based on the new standards.

"Any further changes to the program would only delay the progress that manufacturers have made toward increasing fleet-wide fuel economy," said Dave McCurdy, president and chief executive of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. McCurdy said the industry is dedicated to developing more fuel efficient automobiles, "but adequate lead time is necessary in order to fully integrate these technologies into the marketplace."

Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta announced to much fanfare the new rules in March 2006, proclaiming they were the "most ambitious fuel economy goals" yet for SUVs and their ilk. Mineta called the plan "pragmatic," balancing fuel conservation against auto industry costs and jobs.

The standards required most passenger trucks to boost fuel economy from 22.5 mpg in 2008 to at least 23.5 mpg by 2010. Passenger cars are required to meet a 27.5 mpg average.

"The idea of raising vehicle efficiency 1 mile per gallon is pathetic and shocking," said Brown, who along with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is suing the Bush administration over its refusal to act on California's fuel economy plan for cars in the state.

The court ordered the White House to examine why it continues to consider light trucks differently than cars. Regulators made a distinction between cars and light trucks decades ago when most trucks were used for commercial purposes.

NHTSA had argued that it considered the intent of the manufacturer in making light trucks, rather than their actual highway use, in developing the new fuel standards.

"But this overlooks the fact that many light trucks today are manufactured primarily for transporting passengers," Fletcher wrote for the three-judge panel.

Fletcher also wrote that the administration failed to consider the benefit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

"It did, however, include an analysis of the employment and sales impacts of more stringent standards on manufacturers," Fletcher wrote.

The court also took the administration to task for refusing to include in the new standards trucks weighing more than 8,500 pounds, a class that includes the Hummer H2, Ford F250 and other popular large vehicles.

The court ordered NHTSA to develop fuel standards for these large trucks or give a better reason than the agency's argument that it has never regulated those large trucks and that more testing needs to be done.

"This historic ruling vindicates our fight against fuel economy standards that are a complete sham and a gift to the auto industry," said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who also joined the lawsuit.

Along with California and Connecticut, plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed last year include Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, New York City, the District of Columbia and several environmental groups.

"Caught between domestic terror groups and a government that brutalizes suspected Islamists, Belbacha cannot safely return to Algeria," his lawyers wrote in asking the Supreme Court to take the case. "His fear is such that he would prefer to endure the oppressive environment of Guantanamo until an asylum state can be found."

Brought to Guantanamo Bay in 2002 from Pakistan, Belbacha was an accountant at the government-owned oil company Sonatrach. He says his problems began when he was recalled for a second term of military service in the Algerian army, prompting death threats against him by terrorists in Groupe Isalmique Armee, then at the height of a violent campaign for an Islamic Algeria.

Belbacha never reported for duty, but says the GIA visited his home at least twice and threatened him and his family. He left the country, traveling to France, England, Pakistan and Afghanistan before being brought to Guantanamo Bay.

The justices are facing a decision about whether to hear an appeal from city officials in Washington, D.C., wanting to keep the capital's 31-year ban on handguns. A lower court struck down the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of gun ownership.

The prospect that the high court might define gun rights under the Constitution is making people on both sides of the issue nervous.

"I wouldn't be confident on either side," said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor and author of a new book on the battle over guns in the United States.

The court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear the case.

The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead spells out the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.

The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia was the first federal panel to strike down a gun-control law based on individual rights. The court ruled in favor of Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard whose application to keep a handgun at home was denied by the district.

Most other U.S. courts have said the Second Amendment does not contain a right to have a gun for purely private purposes.

Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the district's.

Four states — Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York — are urging the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."

The district said its law, passed in 1976, was enacted by local elected officials who believed it was a sensible way to save lives. The law also requires residents to keep shotguns and rifles unloaded and disassembled or fitted with trigger locks.

The city's appeal asks the court to look only at the handgun ban because local law allows possession of other firearms.

Critics say the law has done little to curb violence, mainly because guns obtained legally from the district or through illegal means still are readily available.

Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, it ranks among the nation's highest, with 169 killings in 2006.

Heller said Washington remains a dangerous place to live. "People need not stand by and die," he said in court papers.

He said the Second Amendment gives him the right to keep working guns, including handguns, in his home for his own protection.

The last time the court examined the meaning of the Second Amendment was in a 1939 case in which two men claimed the amendment gave them the right to have sawed-off shotguns. A unanimous court ruled against them.

Gun control advocates say the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller settled the issue in favor of a collective right. Gun rights proponents say the decision has been misconstrued.

Chief Justice John Roberts has said the question has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. The 1939 decision "sidestepped" the issue of whether the Second Amendment right is individual or collective, Roberts said at his confirmation hearing in 2005.

"That's still very much an open issue," Roberts said.

Both the district government and Heller want the high court to take the case. The split among the appeals courts and the importance of the issue make it likely that the justices will do so, Tushnet said.

The collection includes a black doctor's bag used by Nichopolous containing prescription bottles bearing Presley's name, as well as jewelry, guns, and a laryngeal scope used to examine Presley's throat.

According to the lawsuit, Nichopolous agreed last year to sell it for $1 million to Long and his business partners, Robert Gallagher and Betty Franklin of Nevada. Long put up the money, and Gallagher and Franklin, who claimed to have a "half interest" in the collection, agreed to assign all their rights to a company Long controlled.

Long alleged in his lawsuit that Gallagher and Franklin refused to surrender access to the memorabilia and would not provide the paperwork needed to obtain insurance. A judge entered a default judgment against Gallagher and Franklin in July after they repeatedly failed to appear for court hearings and ignored court orders.

The judgment held Gallagher and Franklin in contempt and gave Long authority to dissolve the partnership and sell the collection. The Supreme Court turned down Gallagher's appeal Tuesday.

David Finger, an attorney for Long, said his client is determined to make Gallagher give up the collection.

"If he does not turn it over, we will seek to have him incarcerated," Finger said.

Michael Matuska, an attorney for Gallagher and Franklin, did not immediately return a telephone message Wednesday.