California supreme court disbars John Eastman

The California Supreme Court has disbarred lawyer John Eastman, a key figure in former President Donald Trump's efforts to challenge the 2020 election results. The court denied petitions for review from both Eastman and the State Bar of California, upholding lower court recommendations. Eastman must now notify clients and pay sanctions.

The California Supreme Court issued a brief order on Wednesday denying petitions for review filed last September by John Eastman and the State Bar of California. This decision effectively disbars Eastman, a former Chapman University School of Law professor and architect of strategies outlined in memos aimed at overturning Joe Biden's 2020 electoral college victory. The court stated: 'The petitions for review are denied. The court orders that John Charles Eastman (Respondent), State Bar Number 193726, is disbarred from the practice of law in California and that Respondent's name is stricken from the roll of attorneys.' Lower courts had recommended disbarment after finding ethical violations in Eastman's election-related actions, applying strict scrutiny to his statements as core political speech. The State Bar had argued for a different standard, but the supreme court endorsed the lower rulings without addressing harm beyond impacts on the public, courts, and legal profession. Eastman now faces requirements to notify clients, co-counsel, and others within specified timelines, refund unearned retainers, and pay $5,000 in sanctions to the State Bar's Client Security Fund, plus costs. Eastman's attorney, Randall A. Miller, responded: 'The California Supreme Court has allowed to stand a State Bar Court recommendation that we contend departs from long-standing United States Supreme Court precedent protecting First Amendment rights... We will seek review in the Supreme Court.' State Bar Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona welcomed the order, stating it affirms that attorneys must uphold honesty and the rule of law, regardless of their client.

Labaran da ke da alaƙa

Illustration depicting Supreme Court striking down Trump's broad tariffs as he signs a new 15% global tariff order amid political drama.
Hoton da AI ya samar

Supreme Court rules against Trump's broad tariffs

An Ruwaito ta hanyar AI Hoton da AI ya samar

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday that President Trump cannot use the International Economic Emergency Powers Act to impose broad-scale tariffs, prompting immediate responses from the administration and political figures. Trump signed a 15% global tariff under a different law the next day and criticized the court on Monday. The decision has sparked debates over its political implications ahead of the midterms and the State of the Union address.

Ed Martin, serving as U.S. pardon attorney in the Trump administration, has been accused of ethical violations for threatening sanctions against Georgetown University Law Center over its diversity programs. The D.C. Bar's disciplinary counsel also alleges he improperly pressured judges to interfere with an investigation into his conduct. These claims stem from a complaint by a retired California judge.

An Ruwaito ta hanyar AI

Lawyers Defending American Democracy, joined by former White House lawyer Ty Cobb, filed an ethics complaint with the D.C. Bar against DOJ Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign. The group accuses Ensign of making false statements to U.S. District Judge James Boasberg during a hearing on Alien Enemies Act deportations. The complaint stems from a mid-March 2025 emergency order that the government allegedly ignored.

A Georgia judge has denied Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis's motion to intervene in a dispute over nearly $17 million in attorneys' fees sought by Donald Trump and co-defendants in a dismissed election interference case. The ruling stems from Willis's prior disqualification for improper conduct under a new state law. The case will proceed to a bench trial without her participation.

An Ruwaito ta hanyar AI

Almost two months after unveiling a proposed rule on March 5 to let the attorney general review ethics complaints against DOJ attorneys before state bar action, the Justice Department faces intensifying debate. With Pam Bondi out as attorney general and Todd Blanche acting in the role, officials cite rising politically motivated filings—citing cases involving Bondi, Ed Martin and Drew Ensign—while critics decry it as undermining state oversight and the McDade-Murtha Amendment.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has ordered the Department of Justice not to release former special counsel Jack Smith's final report on the investigation into classified documents taken by Donald Trump. The ruling, issued this week, revives Cannon's earlier stance that Smith's appointment was invalid. Critics argue the decision lacks jurisdiction and contradicts historical precedent for such reports.

An Ruwaito ta hanyar AI

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on February 20, 2026, in Learning Resources v. Trump that President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) exceeded his authority. Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion invoked the major-questions doctrine to limit executive power over taxation, while concurring liberal justices emphasized statutory text and legislative history. The decision, expedited due to ongoing tariff revenue collection, spares some targeted duties but introduces uncertainty amid Trump's vows for alternatives.

 

 

 

Wannan shafin yana amfani da cookies

Muna amfani da cookies don nazari don inganta shafin mu. Karanta manufar sirri mu don ƙarin bayani.
Ƙi