John Eastman's Law License Temporarily Suspended by D.C. Court

A significant legal development unfolds in Washington, D.C.

by Nouman Rasool
John Eastman's Law License Temporarily Suspended by D.C. Court
© Jason Getz-Pool/Getty Images

In a decisive move by the D.C. Court of Appeals, John Eastman's law license has been temporarily suspended, echoing a similar suspension in California due to his controversial involvement in post-2020 election legal strategies aimed at maintaining Donald Trump’s presidency.

This latest legal blow comes after California State Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland recommended Eastman's disbarment, highlighting his ongoing threat to public integrity. The suspension order, penned by Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby, stipulates that Eastman's practice rights in D.C.

will remain in abeyance pending the final outcome of the proceedings in California. Moreover, the D.C. challenge to his license remains paused, awaiting the resolution of his California case, where a final verdict from the California Supreme Court is pending, subject to further appeals by Eastman.

Legal Silence and Praise

The nonpartisan States United Democracy Center, instrumental in filing complaints against Eastman in both jurisdictions, has praised the D.C. court's decision. Senior Counsel Gillian Feiner emphasized that those who violate their oaths and misuse their legal authority to undermine democratic processes should face stringent penalties.

Eastman's legal woes extend beyond these disbarment proceedings. He is also implicated in multiple other legal disputes across various states, including Arizona and Georgia, where he faces allegations of conspiring to overturn the legitimate election results.

Notably, Eastman spoke at a rally preceding the tragic January 6 Capitol riot, an event that has significantly tainted his professional and public reputation. While he is not currently charged in the related federal election interference case, Eastman remains a person of interest, dubbed an unnamed co-conspirator.

His legal team consistently defends his innocence across all charges. This broad set of implications seriously underscores the level of scrutiny and potential consequences under which attorneys find themselves for activities perceived to be a threat to the very fabric of democracy in the United States.