SCOTUS Should Review and Reverse John Eastman's Disbarment as a Blow Against Politicized 'Barfare'
Source: M.D. Kittle. "The Supreme Court Can Make A Stand Against Barfare." October 21, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author says California had no right to disbar John Eastman for work he did for Trump on federal election matters, and that the disbarment is political payback by the left. He argues the Supreme Court should take the case and reverse it, since only federal courts should judge federal matters and Trump has pardoned Eastman.
Conclusion
The U.S. Supreme Court should take up John Eastman's petition and reverse his California disbarment, because California lacked authority to discipline him for federal-court work and the disbarment is part of a politically motivated campaign against Trump's legal allies.
Premises
- Every disciplinary count against Eastman arose from his representation of President Trump in federal litigation and Electoral College matters related to the 2020 election.
- The Supreme Court has long held that only federal courts have jurisdiction over legal matters germane to federal courts, so California's discipline of Eastman intrudes on federal authority (a separation-of-powers problem).
- Trump pardoned Eastman, and if the matters are federal, a federal judge would be obliged to apply that pardon.
- Eastman's disbarment is part of a left-wing campaign to punish Trump's lawyers, evidenced by David Brock's statements about targeting 'littler fish' and by the fact that lawyers who lost Bush v. Gore for Democrats were not disbarred.
- The Supreme Court's order requiring California to respond to the petition, and the support of more than a dozen conservative leaders and groups, indicate the petition merits review.
Assumptions
- State bar discipline of a lawyer for conduct in federal-related litigation falls within exclusive federal jurisdiction.
- A presidential pardon can nullify state professional discipline.
- Eastman's conduct was ordinary legal advocacy and did not involve deceit, despite the findings of the California bar courts.
- Motive (political animus) is relevant to whether the disbarment is legally valid.
- A Supreme Court order to respond signals a favorable view of the petition.