Apr. 18, 2026, 6:00 AM EDT
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the disbarment of John Eastman, a former attorney for President Donald Trump and former dean of Chapman University Fowler School of Law, for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election that Trump lost to Joe Biden.
Eastman was the Trump attorney who wrote out a Jan. 6, 2021, plan for then-Vice President Mike Pence to wrongly reject some of the electoral votes Biden won to keep Trump in the White House.
Contrary to what his supporters have said, Eastman wasn’t disbarred for protected political speech but for sanctionable professional misconduct.
Eastman’s attorney, Randall Miller, said the decision “raises pivotal constitutional concerns.” But his argument is unpersuasive.
He’s not being prohibited from practicing law because of the client he represented, for unpopular political advocacy, aggressive lawyering or espousing a particular ideology or legal view. He was tossed for what California’s State Bar Court Hearing Department deemed “egregious and deceitful conduct.” When Eastman tried to overturn valid election results, he engaged in the type of conduct that threatens not only the integrity of the legal profession, but also the rule of law itself. Indeed, the State Bar of California found that Eastman’s false claims about the presidential election misled the “courts, public officials, and the American public.”
Eastman’s attorney, Randall Miller, said the decision “raises pivotal constitutional concerns” and that Eastman plans to seek the U.S. Supreme Court’s help. But his predictable argument that Eastman’s disbarment raises serious First Amendment concerns is unpersuasive. The First Amendment is not absolute. It does not give lawyers a license to violate professional obligations.
Here’s how Eastman landed on the receiving end of the legal profession’s most serious sanction. After extensive proceedings, the State Bar Court Hearing Department found Eastman liable for 10 of the 11 charges against him. Eastman was found culpable for promoting claims of election fraud that he failed to adequately investigate (perhaps because they were almost certainly baseless). He was similarly found culpable of misleading courts and public officials, attempting to create “alternative slates of electors to those that certified the 2020 presidential election” (meaning he advocated the use of “fake” electors) and pushing an unconstitutional legal strategy: namely the vice president unilaterally rejecting some states’ slate of electors.
Eastman, like all other lawyers, was an officer of the court. That role carries obligations that go beyond advocacy, including duties of candor, honesty and respect for the rule of law. Eastman didn’t just cross those lines — he leaped over them. The State Bar’s conclusion was blunt: His actions constituted “egregious and deceitful conduct” incompatible with the obligations of an attorney.
States can regulate the licensing of certain professionals, including lawyers, to protect the public. Love us, or hate us, lawyers are important in our society. As the Supreme Court has recognized, “[t]he interest of the States in regulating lawyers is especially great,