You've probably seen the headlines. John Eastman—once a respected law professor and dean—has become a human lightning rod for the most heated debate in American law. Is he a constitutional scholar who got "lawfared" for giving a client unpopular advice, or a rogue actor who tried to dismantle democracy from the inside?
It’s messy. Honestly, it’s one of those stories where the more you dig, the more you realize how much the "justice" part depends on which side of the political aisle you’re standing on. But for Eastman, the "dilemma" isn't just an abstract debate anymore. It’s a series of very real, very expensive court dates that have defined his life since 2021.
The Pardon That Changed the Game
Fast forward to where we are today in early 2026. The landscape has shifted dramatically. In late 2025, Donald Trump issued a sweeping pardon to Eastman for any federal matters related to the 2020 election. This was a massive moment. For his supporters, it was a long-overdue correction of a "witch hunt." For his critics, it was the ultimate proof of a "two-tiered justice system" where friends in high places can erase legal accountability.
But here is what most people get wrong: a federal pardon doesn't fix everything. It doesn't touch state-level charges, and it definitely doesn't help with the California Bar.
The Georgia Collapse and the $17 Million Bill
If you were following the Georgia RICO case, you know it turned into a total circus. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis was eventually disqualified after that whole controversy involving her relationship with Nathan Wade.
✨ Don't miss: Ukraine War Map May 2025: Why the Frontlines Aren't Moving Like You Think
Basically, the case against Eastman and the remaining defendants was tossed in late November 2025.
Now, we’re seeing something wild. Because of a new Georgia law passed in 2025, Eastman and about a dozen other defendants are actually trying to get the government to pay them. Eastman has filed to recoup over $817,000 in legal fees. Think about that for a second. The prosecutor who tried to put him in jail might end up having to write him a check using taxpayer money.
The "Lawfare or Justice" documentary that premiered at Mar-a-Lago in early 2025 really leaned into this narrative. It framed the whole Georgia saga as a politically motivated hit job that backfired.
The Bar Fight: Why He Still Can’t Practice Law
Even with the Georgia case gone and a federal pardon in his pocket, Eastman is still effectively sidelined. The State Bar of California has been his most persistent headache.
🔗 Read more: Percentage of Women That Voted for Trump: What Really Happened
In June 2025, a review panel upheld the recommendation that he be disbarred. They weren't just slapping his wrist; they found him "culpable" on 10 out of 11 counts of misconduct. The judges didn't buy the "I was just a lawyer giving advice" defense. They said he lied to courts and to the public.
As of right now, Eastman remains on involuntary inactive status. He cannot practice law in California. His team is still fighting this in the California Supreme Court, arguing that if a lawyer can be disbarred for a "novel" legal theory, then no lawyer is safe.
The Core of the "Eastman Dilemma"
So, why does this matter to you? It’s about the precedent.
- The Lawfare Argument: If you’re a lawyer, your job is to zealously represent your client. If the government can take away your license because they don't like your legal strategy, the "independence" of the bar is dead.
- The Justice Argument: Lawyers are "officers of the court." They have an oath to the Constitution. If a lawyer uses their degree to help someone try to overturn an election based on theories they know (or should know) are false, they don't deserve to keep that degree.
What Really Happened with those "Two Paths"?
The whole case against Eastman centers on his January 2021 memos. He suggested Vice President Mike Pence could either reject electors or delay the count. Eastman argues he was presenting "options" based on his interpretation of the 12th Amendment.
💡 You might also like: What Category Was Harvey? The Surprising Truth Behind the Number
The courts, however, have been brutal. A federal judge, David O. Carter, famously wrote that it was "more likely than not" that Eastman and Trump "dishonestly conspired to obstruct" Congress. That phrase—more likely than not—is a civil standard, not criminal, but it has haunted Eastman’s legal defense for years.
Where Things Stand for Eastman in 2026
It’s a weird limbo.
He’s technically a free man in terms of criminal risk at the federal level. The Georgia threat has vanished into a cloud of litigation over attorney fees. But his career as a practicing attorney is on life support. He’s spent millions on defense. He’s become the poster child for the "Alternative Legal Theory" or "Insurrectionist Counsel," depending on who you ask.
He still holds his position at the Claremont Institute, and he hasn't stopped talking. He keeps insisting he was right. In fact, Trump himself recently doubled down, saying Eastman was "right all along" and that's why "they" had to change the law (referring to the Electoral Count Reform Act).
Actionable Insights: What You Can Do
If you're trying to make sense of the "Lawfare or Justice" debate, don't just read the social media clips. Here is how to actually track the truth:
- Read the actual Bar Court ruling: Don't take a pundit's word for it. Look at the 128-page ruling from Judge Yvette Roland. It details exactly which statements the court found to be "knowingly false."
- Monitor the California Supreme Court docket: This is the final boss for Eastman's career. The decision there will set the standard for attorney conduct in political cases for the next fifty years.
- Watch the Georgia fee hearings: If the court orders Fani Willis’s office to pay Eastman's $800k bill, it will be a massive symbolic victory for the "lawfare" narrative.
Whether you see John Eastman as a martyr for the First Amendment or a threat to the Republic, his case has fundamentally changed how we view the relationship between a lawyer, their client, and the truth. It's no longer just about 2020; it's about what a lawyer is allowed to say in a courtroom—and what happens when the court says "enough."