In a move that’s raising serious questions about the state of the legal profession, the California Supreme Court has upheld the disbarment of constitutional attorney John Eastman—effectively ending his career for representing President Donald Trump in challenges related to the 2020 election. Because apparently, taking on the “wrong” client is now grounds for losing your livelihood.
The California State Bar argued that Eastman violated ethical rules while advising Trump after the 2020 election, accusing him of helping advance a strategy to challenge the certification of electoral votes. But a closer look at the charges shows they revolve largely around his role as an advocate—something lawyers are, last time anyone checked, actually supposed to do.
Among the allegations, the bar claimed Eastman engaged in “moral turpitude” for discussing concerns about absentee ballot fraud during a media appearance. Yet documented cases of ballot fraud do exist, and even federal agencies like the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency acknowledged vulnerabilities in mass mail-in voting systems, including processing issues and ballot errors.
Another key issue cited was Eastman’s involvement in the Texas v. Pennsylvania case, where multiple states challenged election procedures in battleground states. While the Supreme Court declined to hear the case on procedural grounds, it never ruled on the substance of the claims—something that tends to get conveniently overlooked.
Eastman was also accused of filing misleading claims in litigation related to Georgia’s election results. However, disputes over election procedures and court handling of those cases—such as the refusal to appoint a judge in Fulton County—suggest there were unresolved legal questions at play, not simply fabricated arguments.
Despite this, California Bar officials celebrated the disbarment, claiming Eastman misled courts and the public. Critics, however, see something else entirely: a clear case of politically motivated “lawfare” aimed at punishing those who challenge the status quo—especially when it involves President Trump.
And Eastman isn’t alone. Organizations like the 65 Project have openly stated their goal of targeting attorneys involved in election-related litigation, aiming to make them “toxic” in their professional communities. In other words, step out of line politically, and your career could be next.
The broader concern here is hard to ignore. If lawyers can be disbarred for representing controversial clients or advancing legal arguments that courts decline to hear, what happens to the principle of legal advocacy itself? Today it’s one attorney—tomorrow it could be anyone willing to take on a politically sensitive case.
Stripping Eastman of his ability to practice law sends a chilling message, especially in states where political alignment seems to carry more weight than legal principle. But it also highlights something else: the growing determination among Trump allies and supporters to push back against what they see as an increasingly weaponized system.
Because in the end, defending the right to challenge, to question, and to advocate isn’t just about one lawyer—it’s about preserving the very foundation of the legal system.
