John C. Eastman

John Eastman wrote Donald Trump's motion to intervene in the Texas Attorney General's case before the Supreme Court. Eastman is frequently referred to as a white supremacist and believes Kamala Harris and Marco Rubio are not US citizens. Eastman is a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute.

E-mail John (714) 628-2587

Voter suppression lawsuits John C. Eastman worked on

Name Filed On Court Finalized Result
Feehan v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (Certification) 12/01/20 Federal Yes Trump Lost
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar (Dem Counties Challenge) 11/09/20 Federal Yes Trump Lost

People are saying

"And the plaintiff seems to have made up the 'quote' in his brief that purports to be from [a Wisconsin case]. . . . The court has read [the Wisconsin case] . . . three times and cannot find these words [from plaintiff's quote]." - Chief Judge Pamela Pepper

"The plaintiff wants Donald J. Trump to be certified as the winner of the Wisconsin election as a result of the plaintiff’s vote. But what he asks is for Donald J. Trump to be certified the winner as a result of judicial fiat." - Chief Judge Pamela Pepper

"The court is stymied by the plaintiff's assertion that his interests and injury are identical to that of President Trump . . . If his interest is solely in getting President Trump re-elected, as opposed to having his vote be counted as part of a valid election process, the court is aware of no constitutional provision that gives him the right to have his candidate of choice declared the victor." - Chief Judge Pamela Pepper

"Federal judges do not appoint the president in this country. One wonders why the plaintiffs came to federal court and asked a federal judge to do so." - Chief Judge Pamela Pepper

"[Regarding Plaintiff's motion] There was no indication that the plaintiffs gave notice to the adverse parties of the morning's motion, there was no affidavit filed with the motion, the complaint is not verified and there was no certification from counsel about the efforts made to give notice to the adverse parties or why notice should be required." - Chief Judge Pamela Pepper

"Voters, not lawyers, choose the President. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections." - Judge Stephanos Bibas

"And the Campaign's charges are selective. Though Pennsylvanians cast 2.6 million mail-in ballots, the Campaign challenges 1.5 million of them. It cherry-picks votes cast in 'Democratic-heavy counties' but not 'those in Republican-heavy counties.'" - Judge Stephanos Bibas

"'Upon information and belief' is a lawyerly way of saying that the Campaign does not know that something is a fact but just suspects it or has heard it." - Judge Stephanos Bibas

"The Campaign's claims have no merit. . . And it never claims fraud or that votes were cast by illegal voters. Plus, tossing out millions of mail-in ballots would be drastic and unprecedented, disenfranchising a huge swath of the electorate and upsetting all down-ballot races too." - Judge Stephanos Bibas

"Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and proof. We have neither here." - Judge Stephanos Bibas

"Even assuming that they can establish that their right to vote has been denied, which they cannot, Plaintiffs seek to remedy the denial of their votes by invalidating the votes of millions of others. . . . This is simply not how the Constitution works." - Judge Matthew W. Brann

"Plaintiffs' only remaining claim alleges a violation of equal protection. This claim, like Frankenstein's Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together from two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent." - Judge Matthew W. Brann

"In the United States of America, this [lack of legal arguments and proof] cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more." - Judge Matthew W. Brann

"One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome [disenfranchising almost seven million voters], a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption . . .. That has not happened." - Judge Matthew W. Brann