America’s Future and Others Support Eastman

America’s Future and twelve other organizations ask the Supreme Court to review John Eastman’s disbarment through the history of election disputes and the treatment of lawyers who bring them. Their amicus brief argues that California improperly treated election-related advocacy as misconduct and applied a politically selective standard.

Dated October 14, 2026, the brief in Eastman v. State Bar of California, No. 26-336, develops four arguments. It challenges what the amici see as California’s assumptions about the 2020 election, disputes a specific misrepresentation finding concerning Texas v. Pennsylvania, describes a campaign against conservative lawyers, and compares Eastman’s treatment with that of California lawyer Vincent Bugliosi. Read the summary (pp. 4–5).

This guide explains the coalition’s arguments and its characterization of the underlying record. For Eastman’s petition, see our earlier reader’s guide.

Who filed the brief?

The thirteen amici include nonprofit advocacy organizations and an educational organization. They describe extensive experience submitting amicus briefs, and some previously supported Eastman’s request for California Supreme Court review. William J. Olson is counsel of record. Read the statement of interest (p. 1).

The brief distinguishes several categories of disciplinary charges: public political statements, two federal filings, memoranda about electoral votes and the Vice President’s role, and communications with Vice President Pence and his counsel. It notes that the allegation that Eastman’s January 6 rally statements provoked the subsequent Capitol events was dismissed as unproven. That dismissed allegation is not treated as a sustained ground for disbarment. Read the account of the charges (pp. 2–3).

1. Election disputes and the assumptions behind discipline

The coalition argues that the California decision began from an unwarranted assumption that the 2020 election had been conducted without meaningful irregularity. The amici read the decision’s opening statement about an orderly transfer of power after a lawful election as prejudging the very questions Eastman sought to raise. This is their criticism of the decision’s reasoning, rather than a finding that the Supreme Court has adopted. Read the opening argument (pp. 5–7).

To support the legitimacy of investigating elections, the brief surveys election controversies and reform efforts over more than two decades. It starts with Florida’s 2000 recount and the subsequent Help America Vote Act. It then considers the Carter-Baker Commission’s recommendations, a Government Accountability Office report on voting-system security, and later concerns about electronic systems.

The Carter-Baker discussion contains a useful distinction: the commission found no evidence of extensive fraud while recognizing that fraud and multiple voting could occur and potentially matter in a close election. The amici use this history to argue that investigating vulnerabilities and challenging election procedures cannot, by themselves, demonstrate dishonesty. Read the election-reform history (pp. 8–10).

The coalition also points to prominent Democrats’ criticism of the legitimacy of Trump’s 2016 victory. It identifies statements by Hillary Clinton, John Lewis, Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden, and others. Its comparison concerns the tolerance afforded political challenges to an election and the alleged absence of comparable disciplinary consequences. It is not a claim that every speaker was a lawyer or that every statement involved the same professional duties as Eastman’s. Read the 2016 comparison (pp. 10–14).

For the amici, preserving a lawful avenue to contest elections is central to public confidence. They argue that a disciplinary system should not require lawyers to accept disputed election claims as settled before they can obtain judicial scrutiny. The brief invokes Alan Dershowitz’s criticism of efforts to punish election lawyers and writings by Justice Robert Jackson warning against government supervision of political truth. Jackson’s passages come from separate opinions, not holdings resolving Eastman’s case. Read the argument for protecting challenges (pp. 17–19).

2. The alleged misrepresentation in Texas v. Pennsylvania

The second argument focuses on Count Two, concerning Eastman’s motion to intervene and proposed complaint on President Trump’s behalf in Texas v. Pennsylvania. California relied on an attorney’s statutory duty not to mislead a judge through false statements of fact or law. The amici contend that the finding combined language from separate documents in a way that attributed to Eastman a statement he never made or incorporated. Read the introduction to Count Two (p. 20).

Their account has three steps. First, Eastman’s complaint incorporated Texas’s complaint by reference. Second, the tribunal relied on a paragraph in Texas’s complaint describing alleged unlawful conduct already being raised in lawsuits or publicly. Third, the tribunal combined that language with a statement about an outcome-determinative number of votes from Texas’s separate motion for leave to file.

The amici’s central distinction is between the Texas complaint, which they acknowledge Eastman incorporated, and the separate motion, which they say he did not. On their reading, the tribunal assembled a representation from documents that did not form a single assertion adopted by Eastman. The guide follows that argument without independently resolving what the pleadings or disciplinary record establish. Read the document-by-document argument (pp. 21–22).

The brief further emphasizes qualified language elsewhere in Texas’s complaint: the allegation that nonlegislative changes appeared to have produced enough unlawful ballots to affect the outcome. The amici argue that the tribunal overlooked that qualification. They also acknowledge that the motion preceded Moore v. Harper, which they describe as rejecting the independent-state-legislature theory underlying the challenge. Their point is about evaluating the filing and its actual assertions, rather than treating the subsequent decision as already controlling when Eastman acted. Read the legal background and footnote 19 (p. 20) and the qualification in the complaint (p. 22).

3. The alleged campaign against conservative attorneys

The third argument asks the Court to examine Eastman’s case within what the amici describe as a broader effort to deter lawyers from representing Trump and other conservative clients. It cites reporting about the 65 Project’s disciplinary complaints, planned spending, and efforts to damage lawyers’ professional standing.

The coalition interprets those statements as evidence of an effort to reduce the future supply of counsel, rather than simply address specific misconduct. It argues that threats to livelihoods, law-firm relationships, and local reputations can discourage representation even before any disciplinary tribunal rules. That broader chilling effect, the amici contend, bears on the significance of Eastman’s petition. Read the campaign argument (pp. 22–25).

The brief’s allegations about political motive are the amici’s interpretation of the cited reporting. The disclosure concerning counsel is also relevant: a footnote states that William J. Olson, counsel of record for this brief, was himself the subject of a 65 Project bar complaint. Read counsel’s disclosure (p. 25, footnote 25).

4. The comparison with Vincent Bugliosi

The final argument compares Eastman’s treatment with that of Vincent Bugliosi, a California lawyer and former prosecutor who sharply criticized Bush v. Gore. The brief discusses his 2001 book, which accused the Court’s majority of using its decision to install George W. Bush as president.

The amici say California took no disciplinary action against Bugliosi despite statements they regard as more aggressive than Eastman’s public commentary. They note that the Bar could initiate proceedings without receiving an outside complaint. They also point to Bugliosi’s proposal that disputed electors be presented to Congress for resolution. Read the comparison (pp. 25–28).

What the coalition asks the Court to do

The conclusion asks the Supreme Court to grant the petition. The coalition’s case for review combines objections to California’s reasoning, a specific challenge to the attribution of statements in a federal filing, and concern about deterring future election litigation. Its requested action is review of Eastman’s disbarment; the conclusion does not request a new adjudication of the 2020 presidential election. Read the conclusion (p. 28).

Read the original document

The complete brief on the Supreme Court’s website contains 36 PDF pages. Printed page 1 is PDF page 8. Source links use the PDF viewer’s page count.

This guide follows the arguments and descriptions of the proceedings in the brief. For the underlying petition, see our earlier reader’s guide.