Ted Cruz and Mike Lee urge Supreme Court review of John Eastman's disbarment
Cruz and Lee argue John Eastman's disbarment threatens lawyers' speech and clients' access to counsel. California's State Bar says the evidence showed he advanced false election claims. The petition is set for the Supreme Court's November 6 conference, and review has not been granted.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
The State Bar's April announcement says the State Bar Court found Eastman culpable of 10 of 11 charges. The senators argue that attorney advocacy is protected speech and that the California decision did not properly apply strict scrutiny. They say they have themselves been targeted with bar complaints over ideological disagreements.
Their filing is one of more than a dozen amicus briefs listed on the docket. It is not a Supreme Court ruling. The docket records distribution of the petition for a November 6, 2026 conference.
People in this case
Timeline
4 timeline entries on this page. Dates: April 15, 2026 to October 14, 2026
April 2026
California Supreme Court disbars Eastman
The State Bar announced the disbarment order following disciplinary findings concerning false election claims and professional obligations.
[01]State Bar of California
The State Bar's April 15, 2026 announcement of the California Supreme Court's disbarment order, with a statement from Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona.
Attorney John Eastman Disbarred by the California Supreme Court · State Bar of CaliforniaOpening paragraph and George Cardona statement
September 2026
Eastman files Supreme Court petition
The official docket records Eastman's petition for review of the California Supreme Court decision.
[02]Supreme Court docket 26-336: Eastman v. State Bar
Official docket. It records Eastman's petition, the State Bar's waiver of its right to respond and the distribution of the petition for the November 6, 2026 conference.
Supreme Court docket 26-336: Eastman v. State BarSeptember 11 petition; October 9 waiver by the State Bar; October 14 amicus submissions and conference distribution
October 2026
State Bar waives response to the petition
The State Bar of California filed a waiver of its right to respond to Eastman's petition, according to the Supreme Court docket.
[02]Supreme Court docket 26-336: Eastman v. State Bar
Official docket. It records Eastman's petition, the State Bar's waiver of its right to respond and the distribution of the petition for the November 6, 2026 conference.
Supreme Court docket 26-336: Eastman v. State BarSeptember 11 petition; October 9 waiver by the State Bar; October 14 amicus submissions and conference distributionCruz and Lee submit amicus brief
Reaction
The senators submitted a joint brief supporting review. The docket also records distribution of the petition for the November 6 conference.
[02]Supreme Court docket 26-336: Eastman v. State Bar
Official docket. It records Eastman's petition, the State Bar's waiver of its right to respond and the distribution of the petition for the November 6, 2026 conference.
Supreme Court docket 26-336: Eastman v. State BarSeptember 11 petition; October 9 waiver by the State Bar; October 14 amicus submissions and conference distribution
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What's disputed
Disputed claim
Eastman's disbarment infringes protected attorney advocacy and threatens clients' access to independent counsel.
What is disputed
California's disbarment of John Eastman.
Sources (1)
- Brief for U.S. Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee as Amici Curiae in Support of PetitionerNo. 26-336; Interest of Amici Curiae and Summary of the Argument
Disputed claim
State Bar of California
Disbarment is warranted by Eastman's serious ethical violations and false claims about the 2020 election.
What is disputed
California's disbarment of John Eastman.
Sources (1)
- Attorney John Eastman Disbarred by the California Supreme Court · State Bar of CaliforniaOpening paragraph and George Cardona statement
Response record
Responses
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
3 responses. Newest first.
Ted CruzU.S. senator for TexasDirectly involvedBefore this statement
The senators submitted the brief in support of Eastman's pending certiorari petition.
"Action: Submitted a joint amicus brief with Mike Lee urging Supreme Court review of John Eastman's California disbarment."
CondemnedResponding to: Eastman's disbarment infringes protected attorney advocacy and threatens clients' access to independent counsel.
Full statement and sources
Cruz argues that the discipline threatens protected legal advocacy and access to independent counsel.
After the statement
Their brief seeks review and does not establish that the Supreme Court has granted it.
Brief for U.S. Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee as Amici Curiae in Support of PetitionerNo. 26-336; Interest of Amici Curiae and Summary of the ArgumentWhy this label?
Relative to Eastman's disbarment, the brief Cruz joined argues that the sanction punishes protected legal advocacy and fails strict scrutiny. That criticizes the disbarment itself rather than how it is described.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Mike LeeU.S. senator for UtahDirectly involvedBefore this statement
The joint brief names both senators as amici supporting Eastman.
"Action: Submitted a joint amicus brief with Ted Cruz urging Supreme Court review of John Eastman's California disbarment."
CondemnedCase context: Ted Cruz and Mike Lee urge Supreme Court review of John Eastman's disbarment
Full statement and sources
Lee joins the argument that discipline for disputed legal advocacy infringes speech rights.
After the statement
The docket lists the submission and a pending petition, not a reversal of the sanction.
Brief for U.S. Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee as Amici Curiae in Support of PetitionerNo. 26-336; Interest of Amici Curiae and Summary of the ArgumentWhy this label?
Relative to Eastman's disbarment, the brief Lee joined argues that the sanction punishes protected legal advocacy and fails strict scrutiny. That criticizes the disbarment itself rather than how it is described.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
State Bar of CaliforniaRegulator statement through Chief Trial Counsel George CardonaDirectly involved Before this statement
Cardona first said the order affirms that attorneys must act with honesty and uphold the rule of law regardless of the client they represent.
"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."
Defended or excusedResponding to: Disbarment is warranted by Eastman's serious ethical violations and false claims about the 2020 election.
Full statement and sources
The State Bar says the disbarment was warranted by findings of serious ethical violations and evidence that Eastman advanced false claims about the 2020 election.
After the statement
He added that Eastman's misconduct was incompatible with the integrity required of every California attorney.
Attorney John Eastman Disbarred by the California Supreme Court · State Bar of CaliforniaOpening paragraph and George Cardona statementWhy this label?
Relative to Eastman's disbarment, the State Bar argues that the sanction was warranted by the disciplinary findings. That defends the conduct under scrutiny.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(3)
Official statement
Attorney John Eastman Disbarred by the California Supreme Court
Relevant passage: Opening paragraph and George Cardona statement
About this source
The State Bar's April 15, 2026 announcement of the California Supreme Court's disbarment order, with a statement from Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Supreme Court docket 26-336: Eastman v. State Bar
Relevant passage: September 11 petition; October 9 waiver by the State Bar; October 14 amicus submissions and conference distribution
About this source
Official docket. It records Eastman's petition, the State Bar's waiver of its right to respond and the distribution of the petition for the November 6, 2026 conference.
- Accessed
Original text
Brief for U.S. Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner
Relevant passage: No. 26-336; Interest of Amici Curiae and Summary of the Argument
About this source
Amicus brief submitted October 14, 2026 on behalf of both senators. It argues that the disbarment violates the Free Speech and Petition Clauses and asks the Court to grant review.
- Author
- Christopher Mills, counsel of record for U.S. Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee
- Published
- Accessed
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Ted Cruz and Mike Lee urge Supreme Court review of John Eastman's disbarment
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/cruz-lee-eastman-disbarment-supreme-court-review
The Dispute Index. "Ted Cruz and Mike Lee urge Supreme Court review of John Eastman's disbarment". First published: 2026-10-15. Last updated: 2026-10-15. https://disputeindex.com/cases/cruz-lee-eastman-disbarment-supreme-court-review