California Attorney John Eastman Disbarred For Doing His Job

John Eastman, the attorney who represented President Donald Trump, has officially been disbarred courtesy of the California Supreme Court and declined Eastman’s case despite clear First Amendment violations.

“‘Denied; disbarred.’ With that cursory ruling, the Cal. S.Ct declined to take my case despite clear First Amendment violations. So Bar Court disbarment recommendation now takes effect. We will appeal to U.S. S.Ct. Costly, but important. Please help here,” Eastman posted to X, which as of this morning has 462,000 views.

"Denied; disbarred." With that cursory ruling, the Cal. S.Ct declined to take my case despite clear First Amendment violations. So Bar Court disbarment recommendation now takes effect. We will appeal to U.S. S.Ct. Costly, but important. Please help here. https://t.co/XgROh6CLs4

— John Eastman (@DrJohnEastman) April 16, 2026

In what many attorneys call the “two-tiered system of justice and of bar discipline,” California Attorney John Eastman did his job and has been punished by the left for representing Donald Trump.

The Federalist posted about Eastman and Jeffrey Clark, another former Trump attorney “who has been the target of that same system in Washington, D.C., where the ‘two-tiered’ nature may be the most acute: “Left-wing bars will disbar their political enemies, while simultaneously restoring the statuses of convicted Russiagate felons like former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith.”

Clark posted to X:

“John [Eastman] represented the President in litigation challenging an election. That’s all. He lied about nothing. Reasonable minds can disagree about the 2020 election. He did what lawyers are supposed to do — represent disfavored individuals. And make no mistake, the elites, especially in bar apparatuses, disfavor and hate President Trump and anyone associated with him with a burning passion. No one representing Vice President Gore was disbarred for losing Bush v. Gore where the whole partial county-specific recount strategy Democrat lawyers devised there was ruled an unconstitutional violation of equal protection.”

Here is how Kyle Cheney of Politico reported Eastman’s case:

John Eastman, the conservative attorney who helped devise President Trump’s last ditch strategy to overturn the 2020 presidential election, has officially been disbarred, per the California Supreme Court.

Cheney notes: “Bar discipline remains the only enduring form of punishment that has faced Trump’s allies in the 2020 election effort: -Rudy Giuliani -John Eastman -Jenna Ellis -Kenneth Chesebro -Jeff Clark (proceedings pending).”

This is law fare. John Eastman, along with Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, Kenneth Chesebro, and Jeff Clark are all the tragic victims of that two-tiered law fare waged on conservatives and anyone connected to Donald Trump.

On a GiveSendGo page to raise funds for Eastman’s legal defense, is the actual story of the law fare waged against Eastman:

John Eastman served as President Trump’s lawyer on several legal challenges arising out of the 2020 election, including President Trump’s Motion to Intervene in the U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. Pennsylvania et al., and Trump’s own Petition in Trump v. Boockvar asking the Supreme Court to review three unconstitutional Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions.Dr. Eastman also advised the President about constitutional ways to prevent illegal conduct of the election from determining the results, and he spoke before the President at the Save America rally on January 6.

For his efforts to ensure a free and fair election, he was “retired” from his tenured faculty position at Chapman University’s law school, where he had previously served as Dean, and had his classes and speaking responsibilities cancelled at the University of Colorado Boulder, where he was serving as the Visiting Professor of Conservative Thought and Policy. He has been targeted by hard core leftist activists who have filed a bar complaint against him, seeking to have him disbarred and thereby lose his source of income. He has also been subpoenaed by the hyper-partisan January 6 Committee in the House of Representatives, which is targeting anyone involved in election integrity efforts as well as those engaged in freedom of speech and association to voice their objections to illegality in the conduct of the election. Responding to both of these attacks has required Dr. Eastman to hire outside counsel, at significant cost to himself.

I remembered a pertinent article from a few years ago, California Would Disbar Ted Cruz and 18 Attorneys General If It Could, by Margot Cleveland at The Federalist.

The title of her article is self-explanatory, as she describes the California State Bar as a kangaroo court.

She notes that “the press release announcing the disciplinary charges further claimed that Eastman ‘made false and misleading statements regarding purported election fraud,’ that provoked a crowd into assaulting and breaching the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.”

Getting into the meat of the dubious case, Cleveland continued:

The 11 charges against Eastman prove troubling throughout, with the State Bar of California proposing to discipline Eastman for presenting legal analyses to his client, Trump, and for speaking publicly on his views about the election, with the bar even attempting to hold Eastman responsible for any violence that occurred on Jan. 6. The disciplinary complaint also misrepresents numerous arguments Eastman and others made concerning the 2020 election, falsely equating claims of violations of election law with fraud.

But it is count two of the disciplinary complaint, charging Eastman with “seeking to mislead a court,” that exposes the California State Bar as a kangaroo court.

While count two represents but one of the 11 distinct charges levied against Eastman, it most clearly exposes the logical conclusion reached when state bars use disciplinary proceedings to conduct lawfare against political opponents.

Eastman said he’s “in the fight to stay. We’ll be petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn this travesty and violations of my First Amendment and Due Process rights. Stay tuned.”

The Globe will be following his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.