U.S. District Judge Mary L. Cooper in Trenton determined that the Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association had not shown sufficient cause to order her to block enforcement of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, passed by Congress in 2006.

That law was designed to stop online gambling by choking off the electronic processing of money for online wagers or payouts.

The industry group had argued that the law was unconstitutional on many fronts, including freedom of speech and invasion of privacy concerns. It wanted the court to declare that people should be allowed to gamble from the privacy of their own homes.

In a speech marking the fifth anniversary of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, Bush said U.S. officials have helped foil numerous planned attacks, including a plot to fly an airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast and another to blow up trans-Atlantic passenger jets.

"The enemy remains active — deadly in its intent — and in the face of this danger, the United States must never let down its guard," Bush said.

Bush continued to pressure the House to act on Senate-passed legislation needed to renew an intelligence law that governs how the government can eavesdrop on suspected terrorists. The law expired Feb. 16 and the House and Senate have yet to reconcile different versions of a new intelligence bill.

In a decision last month, U.S. District Judge James Robertson said government accounting for billions of dollars owed to Indian landholders has been "unreasonably delayed" and is ultimately impossible.

At the same time, Robertson said the task is not hopeless, and he asked lawyers for both sides to lay out their cases again at a status hearing on Wednesday.

The June trial "is meant to bring this matter to a conclusion," Robertson said.

The suit, first filed in 1996 by Blackfeet Indian Elouise Cobell, claims the government has mismanaged more than $100 billion in royalties held in trust from Indian lands dating back to 1887.

In court papers, Bank Julius Baer didn't give a reason for dropping the suit and reserved the right to refile it later. Bank lawyer William Briggs didn't return a telephone call seeking comment.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White ordered the Web site shut down after Bank Julius Baer sued Wikileaks and the San Mateo company Dynadot. The bank argued it was trying to halt "the unlawful dissemination of stolen bank records and personal account information of its customers."

Dynadot, which provided the site's U.S. domain name, agreed to disable Wikileaks in exchange for the bank removing it from the lawsuit.

The judge's order, however, backfired for Bank Julius Baer because it only led to bank's information being spread further across the Internet. Several other Web sites posted the same material out of solidarity with Wikileaks, and Wikileaks posted the documents on "mirror" Web sites it owns outside the U.S.

After enduring criticism from free speech advocates and media organizations, including The Associated Press, White reversed himself on Friday and ruled the Web site could reopen and continue to post the documents until the lawsuit was resolved.

Wikileaks, which bills itself as an activist organization that urges the posting of leaked government and corporate documents to expose corruption, wasn't represented at that hearing. White, however, said he agreed with the dozen lawyers representing the critics that his initial ruling probably violated free speech laws.

The Wikileaks site claims to have posted 1.2 million leaked government and corporate documents that it says expose unethical behavior, including a 2003 operation manual for the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.