The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York held two hours of oral arguments on Tuesday for the first time over whether it is constitutional and legal for the government to collect data on American's phone calls, through a program that began after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Under the program, approved by Congress through the Patriot Act, under section 215, the NSA collects American phone call records data each day from phone companies that show what telephone number someone called, and how long they spoke to them for.

The government argues the data is useful to find connections between people in the U.S. connected to foreign terrorists.

The televised hearing stems from a case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU v. Clapper, challenging the legality of the program, after it was first revealed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in July 2013.

During the arguments, the three judge panel questioned specifically why the arguments supporting the bulk collection of data of American's phone records couldn't be applied to their banking records? Judge Gerard E. Lynch asked government Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery, "Whether somebody that you had some reasonable suspicion is engaged in terrorist connections used his credit card last week to buy a ton of fertilizer as it is to find out whether he called his guy? ...Why doesn't the same thing apply to credit cards?"

Delery responded that would be the correct procedure when there is a criminal investigation, "But if you just look at the what the government's use of the metadata in the case ... that the purpose of the bulk collections to allow for the use of analytical tools in counter terrorism investigation so its both the nature of the data which is inter connective and can be standardized which can be searched through what is called contact chaining to make connection and in furtherance of particularly type of investigations, not order criminal investigations, looking back at who purported a crime but are designed to be forward looking that the purpose of the work is to detect and disrupt future plots before an attack can be made."

Delery said the collection of credit cards wouldn't have the same benefit and couldn't be analyzed in the same way.

The lawsuit argues the program violates the First Amendment rights of free speech and association, as well as the rights of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment. The complaint also charges the dragnet program exceeds the authority that Congress provided through the Patriot Act.

Also debated was whether Congress was briefed on and ratified the program and whether the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court found the program to be lawful and constitutional.

Delery said it had but Alex Abdo, an ACLU staff attorney argued this was not the case.

"Many members of Congress were not aware of the program, those that were were not provided any legal analysis of the program, and even then they were not allowed to discuss it with their colleagues or their constituents in a way that the Supreme Court has always pointed to."

Abdo added, "The government tries to explain legal theories that it advances are a road map to a world in which the government routinely collects vast quantities information about Americans that have done absolutely nothing wrong."

After the Snowden exposures, President Obama in March called for an end to the bulk collection program but two bills concerning the changes languish in the House and Senate.