The California Supreme Court has officially disbarred John Eastman, a former Chapman University School of Law professor and attorney.

Eastman played a significant role in former President Donald Trump’s unsuccessful attempts to challenge the 2020 presidential election results. He is notably recognized for drafting two controversial “coup memos” that outlined potential strategies to overturn President Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory.

In a succinct decision released on Wednesday, the state’s highest court rejected review petitions filed last September by both Eastman and the State Bar of California.

“The petitions for review are denied,” declared the court. “The court orders that John Charles Eastman, State Bar Number 193726, is disbarred from the practice of law in California and that Respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys.”

Earlier in September 2025, the State Bar authorities urged the justices to uphold a disbarment recommendation for Eastman, stemming from his involvement in election-overturning efforts, while also disputing the lower courts’ review standards and their findings.

Latterly in September 2025, Eastman’s legal team sought to terminate his prolonged disbarment proceedings.

By ruling against both petitions, the high court effectively endorsed the rulings issued by both the trial court and appellate court. Those lower courts recommended Eastman’s disbarment and determined “all of Eastman’s relevant statements were core political speech triggering strict scrutiny.”

The state bar, however, insisted this was the wrong way to look at what Eastman said and did in service of Trump’s quixotic quest.

Under long-standing ideas of constitutional analysis, the way a court approaches an inquiry into government behavior is often determinative, if not dispositive. In the parlance of the U.S. Supreme Court, there are three major frameworks: rational basis review, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. In general terms, rational basis review often yields a win for the government; strict scrutiny often yields a loss; while intermediate scrutiny is anyone’s guess.

In Eastman’s case, the bar’s counsel is part of the bar, which itself is part of the court system – all of which was created by the legislature. So, in basic terms, the counsel’s behavior is being coded as governmental action when analyzing the punishment of Eastman’s speech. But, the state bar wanted Eastman’s case to stand “as future citable authority” and argued the “identification of strict scrutiny as the standard applicable” to Eastman’s pro-Trump efforts “stands in stark contrast to extensive jurisprudence to the contrary.”

Such arguments were effectively ignored by the state supreme court.

The justices also declined to address whether Eastman’s conduct rose to the level of “significant harm in aggravation.”

Again, both the trial court and appellate court went the opposite way: declining to find that Eastman’s behavior caused harm beyond “the public, the courts, and the legal profession.” Bar disciplinary counsel, however, said Eastman caused additional harm to elections administrators by “sowing doubt” about the electoral process.

Both declined petitions were discretionary. Upon the Review Department’s June 2025 ruling, the case was automatically filed with the California Supreme Court – giving each party 60 days to file a petition. Had neither party filed such a petition, the intermediate ruling would have been finalized. Eastman, for his part, asked the state supreme court for additional time to file and was granted a reprieve to file late last September.

Now, another set of timelines is operative.

Under the relevant rules for disbarred lawyers, Eastman must issue a series of notifications to any clients, co-counsel, opposing counsel or adverse parties in pending matters and refund any retainers that have not yet been earned. Clients must be apprised immediately, while Eastman has “30 and 40 calendar days, respectively,” to alert the relevant parties and then file proof of such compliance.

“Failure to do so may result in denial of any future application for reinstatement,” the state supreme court’s order explains.

Eastman also owes substantial fees.

From the order, at length:

Respondent must pay monetary sanctions to the State Bar of California Client Security Fund in the amount of $5,000 in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 6086.13 and rule 5.137 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar. Monetary sanctions are enforceable as a money judgment and may be collected by the State Bar through any means permitted by law.

Costs are awarded to the State Bar in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 6086.10 and are enforceable both as provided in Business and Professions Code section 6140.7 and as a money judgment, and may be collected by the State Bar through any means permitted by law.

Any monetary requirements imposed in this matter shall be considered satisfied or waived when authorized by applicable law or orders of any court.

Eastman’s attorneys in the matter responded to the news.

“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,” Randall A. Miller told Law&Crime. “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 Supreme Court to repudiate this threat to the rule of law and our nation’s adversarial system of justice.”

The state bar praised the decision.

“Today’s California Supreme Court order disbarring John Charles Eastman from the practice of law in California affirms the fundamental principle that attorneys must act with honesty and uphold the rule of law, regardless of the client they represent or the context in which that representation occurs,” State Bar of California Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona told Law&Crime.

“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 continued. “The Court’s order underscores that Mr. Eastman’s misconduct was incompatible with the standards of integrity required of every California attorney.”