Volokh and coauthors seek review while not addressing other allegations against Eastman
Eugene VolokhLaw professor and coauthor with Rebecca Roiphe and Nadine Strossen
Volokh, Roiphe and Strossen seek First Amendment review of disbarment based on public political speech. They decline to address other allegations, including alleged false statements to courts, Eastman's own client and Vice President Pence's team.
“This amicus brief does not opine on those matters. ... this Court should grant certiorari to consider when lawyers can be disbarred for their public political speech.”
Original text
Where this statement fits
Ted Cruz and Mike Lee urge Supreme Court review of John Eastman's disbarment
The California Supreme Court disbarred John Eastman on April 15, 2026 after disciplinary proceedings over his work concerning the 2020 election. On October 14, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee submitted a Supreme Court brief urging review. They argue that the discipline punishes protected advocacy and chills independent legal representation. The State Bar said in April that the discipline was warranted by clear and convincing evidence that Eastman advanced false claims about the 2020 election, and that attorneys must act honestly regardless of the client they represent. It waived its right to respond to the petition on October 9. The docket lists a pending petition, not a decision on the discipline.
Source and context
Original text
About this source
The coauthors do not endorse every act attributed to Eastman. They focus on whether a sanction rests partly on protected public speech.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The amici say Eastman was disbarred in large part based on his public political statements.
After the quotation
In its First Amendment argument, the brief says Eastman's public election statements would have been protected if he were an ordinary citizen, even if they were knowingly false.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
The reference point is Eastman's disbarment. The coauthors seek review on public-speech grounds while expressly declining to address the other allegations against him.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseCummings says restoring Eastman's license would weaken bar independence
“A ruling in his favor would give Trump’s lawyers exactly what they want: a constitutional shield against state bars like California’s”Read statement
Kittle describes Eastman's disbarment as political punishment
“They have all paid a dear price for representing the client the left wants locked up or dead.”Read statement
Article III Project calls the discipline an ideological test
Article III Project
“This practice is an offense to the Constitution and a danger to the health of the legal profession.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Volokh and coauthors seek review while not addressing other allegations against Eastman
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/7009-volokh-roiphe-and-strossen-seek-first-amendment-review
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Volokh and coauthors seek review while not addressing other allegations against Eastman". First published: 2026-10-28. Last updated: 2026-10-28. https://disputeindex.com/events/7009-volokh-roiphe-and-strossen-seek-first-amendment-review