Mr. Siegelman’s case has been cited by Democrats here and in Washington as Exhibit A in their contention that politics has influenced decisions by the Justice Department, which prosecuted the former governor. In addition, Mr. Siegelman’s conviction in June 2006 here sharply polarized the political climate in this state, and suggestions by his supporters and others that the former Bush White House political director, Karl Rove, may have been involved have only increased the tensions.

Republicans have angrily denied the accusations of politics, but Mr. Siegelman has picked up some outside support for his claims of political prosecution. The House Judiciary Committee has held hearings on his case, and 44 former state attorneys general, Democrats and some Republicans, signed a petition last summer urging Congress to look into the conviction.

Photo

The court’s order came on the same day that the Judiciary Committee made a request to the Justice Department that the former governor be freed temporarily to travel to Washington next month to testify about his assertions that he was prosecuted for political reasons. A committee spokeswoman cited difficulties in getting information from the department as a reason for wanting Mr. Siegelman’s testimony.

It was not immediately clear if the appeals court decision on Thursday to release Mr. Siegelman would limit his ability to travel outside Louisiana or his home state, Alabama, to travel to Washington to testify.

Democrats in Alabama were jubilant on Thursday, and Mr. Siegelman’s lawyers took the appeals court order as a rebuke to the government’s position that there was no basis for the ex-governor’s challenge to his conviction.

Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters.

“It’s a huge step, but its not the final step,” said Vince Kilborn, one of the lawyers. “They specifically state his appeal raises substantial issues. It certainly throws cold water on the Justice Department position that there was nothing to his appeal.”

Joe Turnham, chairman of the state Democratic Party, said the decision showed that Mr. Siegelman might prevail on appeal.

“I think it’s a glimpse of his ability perhaps to be vindicated,” Mr. Turnham said. “I think it’s a crack in the armor.”

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

For years, Mr. Siegelman was a dominant political figure in this state, and one of its few broadly successful Democrats.

In June 2006, he was convicted by a federal jury here of taking $500,000 from Richard M. Scrushy, ex-chief executive of the HealthSouth Corporation, for an appointment to the state hospital licensing board.

The money was to retire a debt from Mr. Siegelman’s campaign for a state lottery to pay for schools. The government maintained Mr. Siegelman was liable for the debt, because he was a co-guarantor; his lawyers said he would never have been expected to pay back the loan personally.