California Supreme Court Disbars John Eastman Over 2020 Election Scheme

John Eastman, a conservative lawyer who helped devise post-2020 strategies to keep Donald Trump in office, was recently disbarred by the California Supreme Court after the state’s highest court concluded his conduct surrounding efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election violated professional rules. The ruling strips Eastman of his law license in California for what the court characterized as participation in a scheme to subvert the lawful certification of election results, centering on his legal memoranda and advice that sought to create alternate slates of electors and obstruct the transfer of power.

The decision lands against a backdrop of evidence that the 2020 vote count was accurate to a very high degree — post-election audits shifted the net presidential tally by only about 0.007% — and longstanding research showing voter fraud in U.S. elections is extremely rare and almost never large enough to change outcomes. Eastman’s disbarment also fits a pattern of disciplinary actions in the aftermath of 2020: other lawyers involved in high-profile election challenges, including Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Jeffrey Clark, have faced suspensions, sanctions or disbarment recommendations, a trend that has shifted coverage from abstract legal debate to questions of professional accountability.

Public reaction has been sharply divided. Some voices on social media called the disbarment an overreach that punishes advocacy — for example, commentators argued Eastman merely drafted a memo or warned that the ruling could chill attorneys who represent unpopular clients — while others celebrated what they view as necessary accountability for attempts to overturn a certified election. That polarization mirrors broader opinion gaps: as of March 2026, 57% of Republicans see voter fraud as the biggest threat to fair elections compared with far smaller shares of Democrats and independents, and outlets such as The New York Times have driven a narrative shift from scrutinizing the legal merits of post‑2020 litigation toward documenting ethical breaches and the professional consequences for the lawyers involved.