Authored by Brad Jones via The Epoch Times,
The California Supreme Court decided to disbar former Trump attorney John Eastman over his aiding the president in challenging the 2020 presidential election results.
The court has not yet handed down an opinion to explain the April 15 decision, which affirmed the California Bar court’s recommendation for disbarment for alleged attorney ethics violations.
Eastman, a former Chapman University law professor, gained national attention for advising President Donald Trump on constitutional challenges to election procedures in several battleground states after the president alleged widespread election fraud.
The California decision is not the end of the line for Eastman. He can still practice law in the U.S. Supreme Court and possibly in another state.
“Federal courts are supposed to let me keep practicing, and the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed me to continue practicing, even while I’ve been placed on inactive status [in] California,” he said.
Eastman told The Epoch Times the state court’s decision is “outrageous” and “Orwellian.”
“What’s happening here to our institutions that have been captured by hard line, political, weaponized activists needs to be addressed. I was hopeful that the state Supreme Court would do that, but they’ve obviously punted,” he said.
“And so, it’s now up to the U.S. Supreme Court to fix this metastasization of the weaponization problem.”
Eastman said his attorney will file a certiorari petition, which is a formal request asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the state court’s decision “because of the First Amendment violations that it represents.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that “professional speech does not get lesser First Amendment protection than anybody else’s speech,” Eastman said.
“And yet, what the court has done here is basically said ... I don’t get the same First Amendment protection that the man on the street gets because I was representing a client,” he said.
Eastman claims he is a victim of “lawfare” and was “debanked” over the controversy, which he said is “obviously partisan in nature.”
George Cardona, the chief trial counsel of the State Bar of California, alleged in a June 14 statement that Eastman violated his fundamental obligation to be truthful and uphold the rule of law “when, at the behest of his client, now-President Donald Trump, he engaged in a calculated campaign to falsely undermine the results of the 2020 presidential election, which then-candidate Donald Trump lost.”
Cardona alleged that Eastman “lied to courts,” then-Vice President Mike Pence, and the American people.
Randall Miller, an attorney with the Miller Waxler law firm who represents Eastman, criticized the decision in a statement emailed to The Epoch Times.
“The California Supreme Court has allowed to stand a State Bar Court recommendation that we contend departs from longstanding United States Supreme Court precedent protecting First Amendment rights, especially in the attorney discipline context,” Miller wrote.
“We disagree with that outcome and believe it raises pivotal constitutional concerns regarding the limits of state regulation of attorney speech,” he wrote.
“We will seek review in the U.S. Supreme Court to repudiate this threat to the rule of law and our nation’s adversarial system of justice.”
Deborah Pauly, an attorney with the LEX REX Institute and longtime conservative activist in Orange County, Calif., told The Epoch Times in a text message that the California Supreme Court “rubber-stamped the Bar Court’s recommendation.”
“California is trying to silence anyone who endeavors to protect and defend our Constitution from the swamp,” she said.
Tyler Durden Thu, 04/16/2026 - 15:45Authored by Jacki Thrapp via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and eight states secured a settlement on April 15 that will prevent three major advertising agencies from engaging in unlawful media censorship.
An American flag flies at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) headquarters in Washington on Nov. 24, 2024. Benoit Tessier/File Photo/ReutersThe defendants Dentsu US, Inc., GroupM Worldwide LLC (doing business as WPP Media), and Publicis, Inc. will no longer enter into deals that require them to restrict working with certain clients, according to the settlement.
“A coordinated group of woke, powerful individuals attempted to suppress that Constitutional right by manipulating ad agencies into sabotaging the reach, revenue, and credibility of conservative voices,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement released on April 15.
The plaintiffs - including Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia - alleged that censorship deals between ad agencies and companies had been happening in the background during the past decade, which limited rising voices in the alternative and online media space.
The lawsuit accused some of the largest ad agencies of establishing brand-safety agreements that labeled content creators as “misinformation,” making them unable to receive ad revenue.
The alleged brand-safety standards were part of a campaign to demonetize prominent figures in the conservative space such as Glenn Beck, Steve Bannon, and the late Charlie Kirk, according to court documents reviewed by the Epoch Times.
The campaign allegedly attempted to censor and suppress content from Fox News Channel and X, formerly Twitter.
“This is a deeply disturbing violation of antitrust laws and our Constitution,” Paxton added.
“This was an egregious attempt to control public opinion and silence those who speak out against the liberal elites and powerful corporations. I will continue to lead the fight against viewpoint suppression and protect the speech of Americans from corrupt manipulation.”
As part of the settlement, defendants also agreed to have a court-ordered monitor to make sure agencies are sticking with the agreement and no longer censoring political viewpoints.
The defendants agreed not to enter into or enforce any deal that would limit their advertising spending on political or ideological viewpoints or DEI commitments.
“The ad agencies’ brand-safety conspiracy turned competition in the market for ad-buying services on its head,” FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson said in a statement on Wednesday.
Ferguson added, “this unlawful collusion not only damaged our marketplace, but also distorted the marketplace of ideas by discriminating against speech and ideas that fell below the unlawfully agreed-upon floor.”
Tyler Durden Thu, 04/16/2026 - 15:05