The leftist California legal system had no authority to disbar John Eastman for the “crime” of representing President Donald Trump in the rigged 2020 election, a barfare fighter argues in a brief filed this week in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Washington, D.C.-based Oversight Project’s amicus brief makes the kind of meaty constitutional arguments that could persuade the high court to take up Eastman’s petition for certiorari and, ultimately, reverse his disbarment.
“I’d like to think our brief was one of the major catalysts in convincing the court to order California to file a response,” Jeff Clark, the Oversight Project’s vice president of Litigation, told me in an interview this week on NewsRadio 1110 KFAB in Omaha.
Clark, himself a victim of barfare, added, “California tried to waive filing a response but the Supreme Court last week ordered them to file a response, which is a good sign.”
‘He Did What Lawyers Are Supposed to Do’
The court accepts relatively few petitions to review a decision of a lower court. In this case, the California Supreme Court disbarred Eastman in April after the State Bar Court of Review affirmed an earlier recommendation that found the renowned former law professor culpable of 10 of 11 charges. He was professionally hanged for what the weaponized bar described as “egregious and deceitful conduct” in Trump’s bid to overturn the results of the election.
Eastman was caught up in the Democrats’ rabid campaign to politically knock out and lock up Trump after he challenged the results of the hotly contested 2020 election in which Joe Biden claimed victory by narrow margins in the all-critical swing states. The left wanted to make sure Trump wouldn’t run again in 2024. But to get Trump they trained their attack on his allies, including Eastman, Kenneth Chesebro, Cleta Mitchell, Jim Troupis, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and others that advised the president in his legal challenges.
They have all paid a dear price for representing the client the left wants locked up or dead.
“John [Eastman] represented the President in litigation challenging an election. That’s all. He lied about nothing. Reasonable minds can disagree about the 2020 election,” Clark posted to social media in April. “He did what lawyers are supposed to do — represent disfavored individuals. And make no mistake, the elites, especially in bar apparatuses, disfavor and hate President Trump and anyone associated with him with a burning passion. No one representing Vice President Gore was disbarred for losing Bush v. Gore where the whole partial county-specific recount strategy Democrat lawyers devised there was ruled an unconstitutional violation of equal protection.”
‘From the Same Federal Soil’
More than a dozen conservative leaders and organizations have filed amicus briefs in support of Eastman. The list includes Republican senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah, who argue that “[c]hilling speech is the motivation behind these actions.” The lawmakers’ brief notes longtime sleazy political operative David Brock advised the dark money lawfare group The 65 Project to shame Trump’s legal advisers “and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms.”
“I think the littler fish are probably more vulnerable to what we’re doing,” Brock said in 2022. “You’re threatening their livelihood. And, you know, they’ve got reputations in their local communities.”
But the Oversight Project’s legal arguments on behalf of Eastman aren’t on First Amendment grounds; they stand on the separation of powers.
“We focus on issues that we think are sexy for the Supreme Court,” Clark said.
The brief notes that the Supreme Court has long held that only federal courts have jurisdiction over legal matters germane to federal courts. Eastman, Clark, Trump and 16 others were indicted on racketeering, conspiracy, and other charges in a case brought by Fulton County (Ga.) District Attorney Fani Willis. The case was dismissed in November 2025 after Willis was disqualified. Prosecutor Peter Skandalakis, who replaced the corrupt Willis, said he dropped the charges “to serve the interests of justice and promote judicial finality.”
But while the trumped-up charges originated in a state court, California’s discipline of Eastman involves federal matters, the Oversight Project argues.
“Every disciplinary count here grew from the same federal soil,” the brief states. “Eastman’s engagement covered ‘federal litigation matters in relation to the 2020 presidential general election, including election matters related to the Electoral College.’” The brief cites court precedent.
And Trump has pardoned Eastman and the others. If precedent is indeed correct and the matters are the domain of the federal court, Clark said “it would be the obligation of a federal judge to apply President Trump’s pardon.”
Last Hope
Eastman is on his last appeal. If the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t opt to review California’s punitive discipline against the longtime legal expert, Eastman is out of options.
— Jeff Clark (@JeffClarkUS) October 13, 2026🚨🚨🚨
We've just filed our Oversight Project amicus brief in support of John Eastman's petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Justices to take up, and hopefully reverse, his disbarment in California.
Our position is that Dr. Eastman's advocacy for…
Clark, who is fighting a similar attack by the left-wing Bar Association of the District of Columbia, believes the petition is “ripe” for review. He urged Americans who despise the injustice of barfare to seek higher assistance than the high court.
“Pray for John,” the attorney said.
Listen to the full interview with Jeff Clark.
Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.