Well, in Ex parte Merryman, Lincoln was ordered by a federal court to stop the suspension of habeas corpus and he did ignore it. I assume this is the case to which you are referring, as it affirmed that a president does not have the power to unilaterally suspend habeas corpus. But the Constitution explicitly gives the power to Congress, anyway. And in 1863 Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Act which effectively legalized what Lincoln had already ordered. The point is that Congress can legally suspend habeas corpus. So if the president, in such a scenario, had the support of Congress, as Lincoln eventually did, then de facto martial law could be quite easily effected.

Perhaps it would be a bit of a stretch, but (and I certainly do not endorse this point of view!) the Constitution does give Congress the ability to suspend habeas corpus in times of invasion or rebellion. If habeas corpus is suspended, then it would seem logical that the government could effectively force everybody to remain inside their homes and do whatever the government says. One way to think about it is that the entire country could be, effectively, under house arrest. Thus, you have de facto martial law. Anyway, just the ramblings of a law student.

It's a good thing that Iain Banks has already registered his own domain name, but what about the rest of us with that name? This is bullocks.

The ACLU currently has a similar lawsuit. Although I am not sure who the EFF exactly is representing as plaintiffs, the ACLU is using journalists and other individuals who can show that their work has suffered due to the fear of being spied on by the government.