NLPC argues Eastman retained First Amendment protection
National Legal and Policy CenterAmicus curiae, through its Supreme Court brief
The National Legal and Policy Center and the other amici argue that Eastman's status as a lawyer does not remove speech protections. They urge review of California's disciplinary standard.
“The decision below directly conflicts with this Court’s First Amendment case law.”
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
Amicus brief supporting Eastman's petition in No. 26-336. Its arguments are the filer's position; the Supreme Court has not ruled on them.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The amici take no position on the statements that led to discipline. They argue that even accepting findings of falsehood, California had to satisfy strict scrutiny.
After the quotation
It argues that licensed professionals retain speech protections and says California must satisfy strict scrutiny.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
The reference point is California's disbarment of Eastman. The organization criticizes that discipline and urges Supreme Court intervention.
- 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
- NLPC argues Eastman retained First Amendment protection
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/8098-the-national-legal-and-policy-center-and-the
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "NLPC argues Eastman retained First Amendment protection". First published: 2026-11-04. Last updated: 2026-11-04. https://disputeindex.com/events/8098-the-national-legal-and-policy-center-and-the