The California Supreme Court has disbarred John Charles Eastman after state bar judges found he pushed false claims about the 2020 election, and his legal team plans to take the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court claiming constitutional problems with how the state disciplined him. The decision follows layered rulings from the State Bar Court Hearing and Review Departments that recommended disbarment and found Eastman culpable on multiple charges tied to his efforts around January 6, 2021. State Bar officials framed the action as necessary to protect the integrity of the legal profession, while Eastman’s attorneys say the ruling threatens attorney speech and fundamental First Amendment protections. This piece lays out the court action, the official findings, Eastman’s role in the post-election push, and the planned appeal to the nation’s highest court.
The California Supreme Court’s formal announcement was terse and definitive: “The California Supreme Court disbarred attorney John Charles Eastman today,” and a follow-up statement added the procedural history that led to that outcome. “This after the State Bar Court Review Department in July 2025 affirmed the findings of the State Bar Court Hearing Department’s March 2024 recommendation, which found Eastman culpable of 10 out of 11 charges for egregious and deceitful conduct and recommended his disbarment,” the statement added. Those findings are the culmination of extensive proceedings that examined Eastman’s conduct in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election.
State Bar Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona framed the ruling as grounded in evidence and professional norms. “After extensive proceedings before the State Bar Court’s Hearing and Review Departments, both of which found Mr. Eastman culpable of serious ethical violations, the Court has imposed the discipline warranted by the clear and convincing evidence that he advanced false claims about the 2020 presidential election to mislead courts, public officials, and the American public.” Cardona was explicit that the bar saw a pattern of behavior incompatible with the ethical obligations of a licensed attorney.
“The Court’s order underscores that Mr. Eastman’s misconduct was incompatible with the standards of integrity required of every California attorney,” Cardona added, reiterating the bar’s stance that the integrity of the profession demanded decisive action. The state bar’s process included hearings, findings, and a review that ultimately concluded disbarment was the appropriate sanction. On its face, the decision is a rare and serious penalty, reflecting the gravity with which the bar treated the evidence and conclusions in the disciplinary record.
Eastman is best known for drafting a memo that outlined a plan for then–Vice President Mike Pence to reject certain electoral votes during the Jan. 6, 2021 joint session of Congress, an effort connected to attempts to keep President Donald Trump in office. That role placed him at the center of a national controversy about the limits of legal advocacy and the responsibilities of lawyers in political disputes. The bar’s discipline focused on whether that advocacy crossed the line into deceptive or unethical conduct in a way that warranted removal from the bar roll.
Eastman’s legal team responded swiftly, framing the California ruling as a constitutional overreach that could chill attorney speech. “The California Supreme Court has allowed to stand a State Bar Court recommendation that we contend departs from long-standing United States Supreme Court precedent protecting First Amendment rights, especially in the attorney discipline context,” the statement said. They signaled immediate plans to press the matter upward, challenging the state court’s application of ethics rules to speech that they argue is protected under federal precedent.
“We disagree with that outcome and believe it raises pivotal constitutional concerns regarding the limits of state regulation of attorney speech. We will seek review in the U.S. Supreme Court to repudiate this threat to the rule of law and our nation’s adversarial system of justice,” the statement added, setting the stage for a high-stakes legal battle. That appeal would raise questions about how far state bars can go in policing attorneys’ statements, especially when those statements intersect with intense political disputes.
Observers should expect the case to draw immediate attention if it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, because it presents a collision between state professional discipline and federal free speech doctrine. The California action also highlights the broader debate about accountability for lawyers who advise public officials during contentious political moments. Fox News Digital reached out to the White House on Thursday for comment, and the coming months will reveal whether the nation’s top court takes up the constitutional issues Eastman’s team says are at stake.
Darnell Thompkins is a Canadian-born American and conservative opinion writer who brings a unique perspective to political and cultural discussions. Passionate about traditional values and individual freedoms, Darnell’s commentary reflects his commitment to fostering meaningful dialogue. When he’s not writing, he enjoys watching hockey and celebrating the sport that connects his Canadian roots with his American journey.