# Heritage Foundation, AFPI Urge Supreme Court to Stop California's Attack on John Eastman

Conservative legal organizations are mounting a full-court press for the Supreme Court to intervene in California's disbarment of constitutional attorney John Eastman, arguing the case represents a dangerous expansion of professional discipline weaponized against political disfavor.

The Heritage Foundation's Oversight Project and the America First Policy Institute filed separate amicus briefs Tuesday urging the nation's highest court to hear arguments in Eastman v. State Bar of California during its 2026 term. The filings mark a significant escalation in efforts to protect conservative attorneys from what critics call "barfare" — the targeting of lawyers for providing legal advice that challenges progressive orthodoxy.

At issue is California's decision to strip Eastman of his law license over legal advice he provided President Donald Trump regarding 2020 election challenges. The Claremont Institute senior fellow is one of several conservative attorneys who have faced professional sanctions for their roles in questioning election procedures and outcomes that year.

"John Eastman's disbarment represents not just an attack on one attorney, but a threat to every lawyer who dares to offer zealous representation to controversial clients or advance novel legal theories," the Oversight Project's brief argues. The organization contends California's actions violate the Constitution's supremacy clause and infringe on core attorney-client relationships protected by the First Amendment.

Former Justice Department official Jeff Clark, who signed onto the Oversight Project's filing, knows firsthand the risks conservative attorneys face. Clark himself has been targeted by barfare campaigns in multiple jurisdictions for his role in the Trump administration's election integrity efforts. His participation underscores the broader pattern conservative lawyers see: professional destruction as punishment for representing politically disfavored clients.

The Heritage Foundation and AFPI briefs lay out several constitutional arguments for Supreme Court intervention. They contend the California Supreme Court's decision affirming Eastman's disbarment runs afoul of the supremacy clause because it effectively punishes a lawyer for advising a client on constitutional matters that only federal courts can definitively resolve.

The organizations also argue California's bar proceedings violated Eastman's due process rights and impermissibly burdened his First Amendment freedoms of speech and association. By sanctioning him for legal advice that challenged the political establishment's preferred narrative, California essentially created thought crimes in professional ethics, the briefs maintain.

Eastman's case has become a rallying point for conservatives concerned about the left's systemic attacks on the legal profession. Beyond Eastman, prominent attorneys including Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and former Trump lawyers have faced bar complaints, criminal investigations, and professional sanctions for their work on election integrity matters.

The targeting of these lawyers serves a dual purpose, critics argue. It not only punishes individuals for past representation but creates a chilling effect that deters future attorneys from taking on controversial conservative causes. If representing Donald Trump or questioning election procedures can end a legal career, many talented lawyers will think twice before accepting such clients.

For the Supreme Court, the case presents an opportunity to establish clear boundaries on when state bar associations can discipline attorneys for their legal advice. At least four justices must agree to hear the case before it can be considered by the full court. Conservative legal circles are watching closely, understanding that Eastman's fate may determine whether the practice of law remains open to all constitutional theories or becomes yet another arena where progressive orthodoxy must not be challenged.

The briefs emphasize that protecting Eastman isn't just about one attorney or one case — it's about preserving the adversarial legal system that depends on lawyers willing to advance unpopular arguments. Without such protection, American jurisprudence risks calcifying into a system where only approved viewpoints receive legal representation, fundamentally undermining the rule of law itself.