California court upholds John Eastman's disbarment for role in Trump 2020 plot
A California court has upheld a recommendation that attorney John Eastman should lose his law license because of his central role in President Donald Trump's effort to subvert the 2020 election.
A three-judge 'review panel' of the California State Bar Court found that Eastman's conduct was so egregious — and his remorse so lacking — that the only remedy was to permanently prohibit him from practicing law.
'Eastman continues to fully deny his many unethical actions: he denies he misled the courts; he denies that he made multiple false and misleading statements … he denies that he conspired to subvert the law in order to benefit his client's desire to remain in office after his client lost a fair and lawfully conducted election,' Judge Kearse McGill wrote in the panel's unanimous ruling.
'He used his skills to push a false narrative in the courtroom, in the White House, and in the media. That false narrative resulted in the undermining of our country's electoral process, reduced faith in election professionals, and lessened respect for the courts of this land,' the judges concluded.
A judge of the State Bar Court, Yvette Roland, had recommended Eastman's disbarment last year, a ruling that immediately resulted in Eastman's suspension from practicing law.
The 'review panel' ruling backs up Roland's conclusion. Eastman's next step is the California Supreme Court, which has the final say over attorney discipline matters. While that's typically the end of the line, Eastman hinted he may intend to pursue his grievances against the process in federal court.
'Dr. Eastman is disappointed in the Review Court's opinion, and believes that its analysis and conclusions are not substantiated by the truth, the record, or the law,' his attorney Randall Miller said in a statement. 'Dr. Eastman will seek further review of the Review Court's decision in the California Supreme Court and, if necessary, beyond, and is highly confident of his ultimate vindication.'
Eastman, who was recruited to join Trump's legal team in the aftermath of his defeat at the polls in the 2020 election, became an increasingly prominent figure in Trump's orbit as his bid to reverse the results grew desperate. Eastman helped draft legal efforts to challenge the outcome in key swing states — filings that the court found were riddled with unverified, false and misleading information. And he authored Trump's brief to the Supreme Court that served as Trump's last-ditch legal effort to halt his defeat.
But it was after those efforts failed that Eastman's most memorable work began. Working with other fringe figures in Trump's orbit — after many of his campaign lawyers and Republican Party officials had told him the election was lost — Eastman helped craft a strategy to convince then-Vice President Mike Pence to block Joe Biden's victory during the Jan. 6, 2021, count of electoral votes.
Pence resisted, despite pressure from Eastman and Trump, triggering a pro-Trump mob to riot and eventually breach the Capitol, forcing Pence and Congress to flee.
Eastman and a handful of Trump's other attorneys have been among the few to reap consequences for their role in the 2020 election saga. Disciplinary panels in Washington, D.C., have similarly found that attorney Rudy Giuliani should be disbarred and former Justice Department lawyer Jeff Clark should be suspended from practicing law. The ruling is still under review and has not yet been implemented. Clark, Giuliani and Eastman have also been criminally charged for their roles, though the cases have been mired in pretrial disputes.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
12 minutes ago
- Politico
Judge says government can't limit passport sex markers for many transgender, nonbinary people
BOSTON — A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from limiting passport sex markers for many transgender and nonbinary Americans. Tuesday's ruling from U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick means that transgender or nonbinary people who are without a passport or need to apply for a new one can request a male, female or 'X' identification marker rather than being limited to the marker that matches the gender assigned at birth. In an executive order signed in January, the president used a narrow definition of the sexes instead of a broader conception of gender. The order said a person is male or female and rejected the idea that someone can transition from the sex assigned at birth to another gender. Kobick first issued a preliminary injunction against the policy last month, but that ruling applied only to six people who joined with the American Civil Liberties Union in a lawsuit over the passport policy. In Tuesday's ruling she agreed to expand the injunction to include transgender or nonbinary people who are currently without a valid passport, those whose passport is expiring within a year, and those who need to apply for a passport because theirs was lost or stolen or because they need to change their name or sex designation. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The government failed to show that blocking its policy would cause it any constitutional injury, Kobick wrote, or harm the executive branch's relations with other countries. The transgender and nonbinary people covered by the preliminary injunction, meanwhile, have shown that the passport policy violates their constitutional rights to equal protection, Kobick said. 'Even assuming a preliminary injunction inflicts some constitutional harm on the Executive Branch, such harm is the consequence of the State Department's adoption of a Passport Policy that likely violates the constitutional rights of thousands of Americans,' Kobick wrote. Kobick, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, sided with the ACLU's motion for a preliminary injunction, which stays the action while the lawsuit plays out. 'The Executive Order and the Passport Policy on their face classify passport applicants on the basis of sex and thus must be reviewed under intermediate judicial scrutiny,' Kobick wrote in the preliminary injunction issued earlier this year. 'That standard requires the government to demonstrate that its actions are substantially related to an important governmental interest. The government has failed to meet this standard.' In its lawsuit, the ACLU described how one woman had her passport returned with a male designation while others are too scared to submit their passports because they fear their applications might be suspended and their passports held by the State Department. Another mailed in their passport Jan. 9 and requested to change their name and their sex designation from male to female. That person was still waiting for their passport, the ACLU said in the lawsuit, and feared missing a family wedding and a botany conference this year. In response to the lawsuit, the Trump administration argued that the passport policy change 'does not violate the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution.' It also contended that the president has broad discretion in setting passport policy and that plaintiffs would not be harmed since they are still free to travel abroad.
UPI
18 minutes ago
- UPI
Judge expands order against Trump administration's passport gender policy
A federal judge in Massachusetts on Tuesday expanded an order against the State Department's passport policy to include all applicants who are transgender or nonbinary. File Photo by Ismael Mohamad/UPI | License Photo June 17 (UPI) -- A federal judge in Massachusetts on Tuesday expanded an order against the State Department's passport policy to include all applicants who are transgender or nonbinary, saying the "passport policy violates their constitutional right to equal protection of the laws." Judge Julia Kobick granted a first preliminary injunction in April, which blocked the State Department's policy for only six of seven people who originally sued. On Tuesday, the judge expanded it to plaintiffs who were added to the suit, and nearly all trans and nonbinary Americans seeking new passports or changes. Kobick, an appointee of former President Biden, wrote that the six named plaintiffs and the new class of plaintiffs "face the same injury: they cannot obtain a passport with a sex designation that aligns with their gender identity." "The plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that the Passport Policy violates their constitutional right to equal protection of the laws and runs afoul of the safeguards of the APA," Kobick wrote in Tuesday's opinion, while referring to the Administrative Procedure Act which governs how policies are adopted. After taking office earlier this year, President Donald Trump signed an executive order, proclaiming the United States recognizes only two sexes -- male and female -- and that those sexes "are not changeable." Trump then ordered government-issued identification documents, including U.S. passports, to reflect a person's sex at birth. "We will no longer issue U.S. passports or Consular Reports of Birth Abroad with an X marker," according the State Department. "We will only issue passports with an M or F sex marker that match the customer's biological sex at birth." Under the Biden administration, passport holders could self-select gender designation, including "unspecified" which was designated by the letter X. The Trump administration appealed Kobick's ruling in April. On Tuesday, Kobick wrote that forcing transgender and nonbinary people to choose between two sexes makes them more vulnerable to discrimination. "Absent preliminary injunctive relief, these plaintiffs may effectively be forced to out themselves as transgender or non-binary every time they present their passport," Kobick wrote. The legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts celebrated Tuesday's ruling and vowed to "continue to fight." "This decision acknowledges the immediate and profound negative impact that the Trump administration's passport policy has on the ability of people across the country to travel for work, school and family," Jessie Rossman, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts, said in a statement. "The Trump administration's passport policy attacks the foundations of the right to privacy and the freedom for all people to live their lives safely and with dignity," Rossman added. "We will continue to fight to stop this unlawful policy once and for all."
Business Insider
20 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Trump weighs possible U.S. strike against Iran, WSJ reports
U.S. President Donald Trump is weighing a range of potential actions in response to a recent armed conflict between Israel and Iran, including a possible U.S. strike against Iran, and met with top White House advisers to discuss the matter on Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal reports, citing administration officials. The news comes after Trump earlier posted on Truth Social that the U.S. is aware of the location of Iran supreme leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei but had opted not to take any action, then saying 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER,' the report notes. The White House has previously said it won't join Israel's attacks, the report says. Confident Investing Starts Here:
