The People’s Lawyer: 5 Shocking Truths About Lynne Stewart’s Controversial Conviction And Legacy

The story of Lynne Irene Stewart remains one of the most explosive and debated cases in modern American legal history, pitting the right to legal counsel against the government’s post-9/11 war on terror. As of late 2025, the legacy of the "People's Lawyer" continues to spark fierce debate among civil rights advocates, legal scholars, and federal prosecutors, even years after her death. Her conviction for providing "material support to terrorism" to her client, the notorious "Blind Sheik" Omar Abdel-Rahman, set a chilling precedent for defense attorneys and fundamentally altered the landscape of lawyer-client privilege in high-profile national security cases. The sheer audacity of her defense work, representing some of the most reviled figures in the American public eye, ultimately led to her own indictment and a decade-long prison sentence, which was only cut short due to a compassionate release for terminal cancer. This deep dive uncovers the essential facts of her life, the explosive details of her case, and the lasting impact of a conviction that many saw as an attack on the fundamental right to a defense.

Lynne Irene Stewart: A Life Defined by Radical Defense and Controversy

Lynne Irene Stewart was an American defense attorney whose career was characterized by an unwavering commitment to representing controversial and often radical defendants, a practice that eventually led to her own downfall.

• Full Name: Lynne Irene Stewart
• Born: October 8, 1939, in Floral Park, New York
• Died: March 7, 2017, in Brooklyn, New York
• Cause of Death: Complications from Stage IV breast cancer
• Spouse: Robert "Robbie" Meeropol (Son of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg)
• Education: B.A. from Wagner College; J.D. from Rutgers School of Law (1975)
• Career Highlights: Represented high-profile figures including Weather Underground member David Gilbert, Black Panther leader Larry Davis, and most famously, Egyptian cleric Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman.
• Key Conviction: Found guilty in 2005 of conspiracy and providing material support to terrorism.
• Sentence: Originally 28 months, re-sentenced to 10 years in 2010.
• Release: Granted compassionate release on December 31, 2013, due to terminal illness.

Stewart’s legal philosophy was rooted in a belief that everyone, regardless of the charges against them, deserved a vigorous defense. This principle guided her through decades of work, earning her the title of "People's Lawyer" among her supporters, even as it drew the ire of government officials who viewed her as an enabler of extremism.

The Explosive Case of the "Blind Sheik" and the SAMs

The core of the federal case against Lynne Stewart revolved around her representation of Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, the Egyptian cleric known as the "Blind Sheik." Abdel-Rahman was serving a life sentence for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a plot to attack other New York City landmarks.

1. The Secret Restrictions: Special Administrative Measures (SAMs)

When Stewart took on Abdel-Rahman’s case, her communications with her client were governed by an unprecedented set of rules known as Special Administrative Measures, or SAMs. These stringent rules, put in place by the U.S. Attorney General, severely restricted what a defendant could communicate to the outside world, specifically prohibiting the passing of messages to the media or any third parties. The SAMs were designed to prevent the Sheik from communicating with his followers, who were still active in global terrorist networks. The controversy was that Stewart was one of the first attorneys to be subjected to such tight restrictions.

2. The "Material Support" Charge That Shocked the Legal World

In 2000, Stewart held a press conference in Cairo, Egypt, where she read a statement from Abdel-Rahman. In this statement, the cleric urged his followers to continue their fight. The U.S. government charged that this act—passing a message that could be interpreted as encouraging violence—violated the SAMs and, more critically, violated a federal statute prohibiting the provision of "material support or resources" to organizations designated as engaging in terrorism. Stewart, along with co-defendants Ahmed Abdel Sattar and Mohammed Yousry, was indicted. The prosecution argued that the message constituted "material support" by providing a communication link that enabled a convicted terrorist to continue exercising leadership over his organization, the al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group). The conviction itself was a landmark ruling because it essentially criminalized a lawyer’s communication with a client, challenging the very foundation of the attorney-client relationship.

The Ten-Year Sentence and the Fight for Compassionate Release

The legal battle following her conviction was as controversial as the charges themselves, demonstrating the deep ideological divide her case created.

3. The Shocking Resentencing and the "War on Terror"

Following her 2005 conviction, U.S. District Judge John S. Martin Jr. initially sentenced Stewart to only 28 months, arguing that her actions were "misguided" but not motivated by a desire to harm the United States. However, the government appealed, arguing the sentence was too lenient for a terrorism-related offense. In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered a resentencing. A new judge, John G. Koeltl, re-sentenced the 70-year-old Stewart to ten years in prison, citing the need for a sentence that would deter others from similar actions in the post-9/11 legal climate. This dramatic increase in sentence was seen by her supporters as a political act designed to punish a radical lawyer and send a clear message to the defense bar.

4. The Battle for Freedom: Terminal Cancer and Compassionate Release

While serving her ten-year sentence in a Texas federal prison, Stewart was diagnosed with Stage IV breast cancer. Her health rapidly deteriorated, leading to a massive public and legal campaign by her supporters, including the National Lawyers Guild and numerous civil liberties organizations, to secure her release. The Bureau of Prisons initially denied her request for compassionate release. However, after intense pressure and a formal motion, the court ultimately granted her release on December 31, 2013, to receive medical treatment. This decision allowed her to spend her final years outside of prison, a small victory for her legal team and a moment of closure for a case that had dominated headlines for over a decade.

5. The Enduring Legacy: Chilling Effect on Civil Rights Defense

Lynne Stewart’s case has left an indelible mark on the practice of criminal defense, particularly in national security cases. Her conviction created what many civil liberties advocates call a "chilling effect," where attorneys are now fearful of providing a robust defense for controversial clients due to the risk of being prosecuted themselves under the broad "material support" statute. Stewart herself was a tireless advocate for her own cause, maintaining her innocence and arguing that she was persecuted for her political beliefs and her choice of clients, not for any intent to aid terrorism. Her life and legal battle are now studied as a critical example of the tension between national security imperatives and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Entities such as the Center for Constitutional Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) continue to reference her case when arguing against the overreach of the material support laws. The story of Lynne Stewart is not just the story of a conviction; it is a profound cautionary tale about the perils faced by lawyers who dare to represent the most reviled members of society in an age of heightened national security.