On the material support for terrorism, Stewart was accused of providing "communications equipment" and "personnel" to the Islamic Group in violation of §2339B. However, Stewart's lawyer Michael Tigar and Kenneth Paul, the lawyer for Sattar, argued that the law criminalized innocent behavior.

"The defendants are correct and by criminalizing the mere use of phones and other means of communication the statute provides neither notice nor standards for its application such that it is unconstitutionally vague as applied," Koeltl said. "A criminal defendant simply could not be expected to know that the conduct alleged was prohibited by the statute."

Tigar also argued that it put Stewart in an untenable position as a lawyer for Sheikh Abdel Rahman, an opinion Koeltl appeared to embrace. "The Government accuses Stewart of providing personnel, including herself, to [the Islamic Group]," Koeltl said. "In so doing, however, the Government fails to explain how a lawyer, acting as an agent of her client, an alleged leader of an FTO [foreign terrorist organization], could avoid being subject to the criminal prosecution as a 'quasi-employee' allegedly covered by the statute."

Update: Counterpunch on Lynne Stewart's Big Win.