You'd have to be a really lousy lawyer to lose that one.
The first thing you learn in dealing with legal documents (even if YANAL) is that words only have meaning in their proper context.
In the context of the GPL, GNU emacs is a copyrighted work (which also happens to be copylefted), whose distribution is limited by the GPL. The GPL grants Apple certain rights to modify and redistribute that work in an aggregate work.
In the context of the Apple SLA, Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard is a copyrighted work, whose distribution is limited by the SLA. The fact that this work is an aggregate, and also includes GNU emacs is completely irrelevant to the validity of Apple's copyright or the SLA. Which is all the judge in this case ruled on.
All the evidence points to the fact that Apple respects the GPL and fulfills its obligations through the links previously provided. Even if Apple were actually violating the GPL, it would not render their SLA or copyright for Mac OS X suddenly null-and-void.
B