WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard arguments in two war-on-terrorism cases yesterday — one that tests whether American civilians can seek the help of American courts if they are held in Iraq and the other to determine whether the man who plotted to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport will serve his full 22-year prison term.

In both cases, the justices sounded as though they would rule on the side of the Bush administration.

The first case, Munaf v. Geren, asks the court again to define the reach of the right of habeas corpus: Does it give all persons who are held by American authorities a right to appear before an American court, even if the detainees are held outside America? Or is the right limited to those held in American territory?

For the past four years, the justices have struggled to answer that question, which has been posed by foreigners detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Bush administration and Congress say these men do not have the right to have their cases heard in an American court. That question is again pending before the justices.

In the second case, Attorney General Mukasey, making his first argument before the court, urged the justices to reinstate the 22-year prison term given to Ahmed Ressam, the so-called Millennium Bomber. In December 1999 he was arrested by a customs agent in Port Angeles, Wash., when he tried to cross the border from Canada with a car packed with explosives.

Regardless of how the court rules, his conviction and prison term will stand. Last year, however, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned one count against him because the law was too open-ended. It calls for a 10-year mandatory prison term for anyone who “carries any explosive during the commission of any felony.” Ressam lied to a customs agent — a felony, under the law — and he had explosives in his car.