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?
Disclaimer: The views expressed by our guest, James Mixon, are his own and do not reflect the official position of the California Court of Appeal or the California Judicial Branch. AI technology and legal standards are rapidly evolving, listeners should verify current rules and consult qualified attorneys before implementing AI tools in their practice. Attorneys must independently verify all legal citations and comply with applicable rules of professional conduct.
