Summarizing the extraordinary events surrounding the 2020 election, the California State Bar Court’s review decision issued a decision in June 2025 recommending that President Trump’s election attorney, John Eastman, be disbarred. Tim and Jeff unpack.
- Was Eastman merely theorizing, or actively advocating for a constitutional end-run?
- What is the difference, anyway, whether Eastman represented the President—an office that plays no constitutional role in the VP’s role regarding the electoral votes?
- Eastman’s interpretation of the 12th Amendment was not supported by scholars—but also not judicial foreclosed. Does advocating it warrant disbarment? (The equal-protection argument in Bush v. Gore was similarly off-the-wall, yet successful!)
- Eastman’s factual claims were not well-supported. But on the other hand, did the unique circumstances and recent election-law innovations promote a flurry of suspicion—with too little time to vet before challenges would be moot?
- The bar court says Eastman should have relied on "true experts"—what is that?
