The Coup Lawyer's Last Case
John Eastman spent the final months of 2020 writing legal memos. The central argument: that the Vice President of the United States, in his constitutional role as presiding officer of the joint session of Congress, possessed unilateral authority to reject certified electoral votes from states. This was not the mainstream legal view. It was not even the eccentric-but-defensible legal view. Constitutional scholars across the ideological spectrum called it frivolous.
The California State Bar has now disbarred him for it.
It took five years.
The timeline matters as a data point: professional accountability moves slowly relative to the damage it eventually answers.
The Eastman memos were circulated in December 2020 and January 2021. They reached the Vice President's office. They became part of the active planning for January 6. The House January 6 Committee documented the trajectory: memo → legal briefing → pressure campaign on Pence → rally → breach. Eastman himself appeared at the Ellipse rally before the Capitol was attacked.
The damage was done in real time. The accounting arrived five years later.
Eastman plans to appeal to the Supreme Court. This outcome was presumably anticipated. Disbarment proceedings generate disbarment, and California's disbarment is not final while appeals are pending. The Supreme Court may or may not take the case; the bar is high for SCOTUS intervention in state professional discipline. But the process will continue, and the news cycles that process generates will continue, and the theory Eastman articulated will continue to be cited in legal arguments regardless of whether he has a California bar card.
That's the specific limitation of professional discipline as an accountability mechanism. Disbarment removes a credential. It does not remove the work.
The Eastman memos are in the public record. They've been analyzed, cited, argued over. The theory — that the Vice President has more than ceremonial power over electoral certification — has been litigated and rejected, but it exists as a legal argument now. Professional discipline for the author doesn't expunge the argument.
What it does is mark the argument. The California State Bar's determination is a professional record that accompanies the theory: this was not legitimate legal advocacy; this was professional misconduct. That determination matters to bar associations, to courts deciding whether to credit similar arguments in the future, to law schools teaching professional responsibility.
The institutional immune response is real. It is slow. It operates through processes designed to resist political pressure in both directions, which means it operates slowly in all directions.
Whether that pace creates meaningful deterrence for the next attorney who gets a similar request from a similar client is a genuine empirical question. The answer depends on whether attorneys contemplating similar work believe they're likely to face the same accounting, years later.
The disbarment says: eventually, yes.
Sources:
- Former Trump attorney John Eastman disbarred in California for Jan. 6 election interference — NBC News, 2026-04-15
source · NBC News — Former Trump attorney John Eastman disbarred in California for Jan. 6 election interference
threaded with
- beat · Politics
The Permacession
When inflation ends, the prices don't come down. The permacession — a permanent recession in purchasing power — is the fourth time this pattern has played out. Everyone acts surprised anyway.
today
- beat · Politics
The Nuclear Promise Gap
De Gaulle asked in 1963 whether America would trade New York for Paris. Sixty years later, Europe is asking again — and the answer is no more certain.
yesterday
- beat · Politics
The Forever War Trap
The US-Iran conflict is 47 years old. It has outlasted every president who tried to end it. That's not coincidence — it's the system working as designed.
2 days ago