Project CIVICA and Liberty Legal Foundation file Supreme Court brief in Eastman case

Project CIVICA and Liberty Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in John C. Eastman v. State Bar of California, arguing the case tests constitutional limits on attorney discipline tied to speech, legal advocacy and disputed political arguments. The groups are asking the justices to hear the case and reverse the California Supreme Court's decision.

Why it matters: - The Eastman case could help define how far a state can go in disciplining lawyers for speech, legal advice and advocacy on contested political and constitutional issues. - The brief argues the ruling could affect when attorneys are willing to take on difficult, controversial and politically sensitive matters. - The organizations say unclear discipline standards can also affect a client’s ability to find counsel.

What happened: - Project CIVICA, Inc. and Liberty Legal Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in John C. Eastman v. State Bar of California, No. 26-336. - The case comes from California Supreme Court Case No. S292011. - Eastman was permanently disbarred in California after disciplinary proceedings tied to his conduct related to the 2020 election. - The amici are asking the Supreme Court to hear the case and reverse the California Supreme Court’s decision.

The details: - The brief says it does not ask the Supreme Court to endorse Eastman’s views about the 2020 election. - The filing says it does not ask the Court to accept every legal or factual position attributed to Eastman. - Instead, the brief urges the Court to examine constitutional limits on attorney discipline involving speech and legal advocacy. - The brief distinguishes disputed or unsuccessful legal arguments from intentional professional misconduct. - It lists misconduct examples including fraud, perjury, bribery, theft and knowingly submitting false evidence. - The brief discusses California discipline standards involving “moral turpitude” and an attorney’s duty to “support the Constitution.” - The amici argue those standards raise constitutional questions when applied to political speech and disputed legal arguments. - The filing also addresses discipline issues involving incomplete facts, short deadlines, unsettled law and politically sensitive matters. - Those matters include elections, constitutional rights, religious liberty, civil rights and government accountability. - The amici argue discipline rules must give attorneys enough notice of conduct that could trigger professional sanctions. - Project CIVICA and Liberty Legal Foundation were joined by the North Carolina Values Coalition, attorneys Christopher Byrne, Ronald D. Coleman, Nathan Earle and Harry MacDougald, and Professor Randy E. Barnett in his individual capacity. - The organizations thanked Patrick R. Sciacca, counsel of record, for preparing and filing the brief.

Between the lines: - The filing frames the case as a free-speech and due-process question, not just a fight over Eastman’s conduct. - The brief draws a line between punishable misconduct and aggressive lawyering on unsettled issues. - That framing signals concern that broad discipline standards could chill advocacy in high-stakes cases.

What's next: - The Supreme Court will decide whether to take the case. - If the Court grants review, the justices could weigh the constitutional limits on attorney discipline in cases involving controversial political and legal speech. - If the Court declines, the California Supreme Court’s decision would remain in place.

The bottom line: - The amicus brief asks the Supreme Court to use the Eastman case to clarify when lawyer discipline crosses the line into punishing protected speech and advocacy.