John C. Eastman

In 1990 Eastman was unopposed in the primary to become the Republican challenger of long term 34th District incumbent Esteban Torres in California's San Gabriel Valley.[22][23][24]

On February 1, 2010, Eastman resigned as Dean of the Chapman University School of Law to pursue the Republican nomination for California Attorney General.[25] On April 1, a Superior Court judge denied Eastman's choice for ballot designation, "Assistant Attorney General", fearing that use of this title, granted by South Dakota for his work on a lawsuit, would be misperceived as a California title. The judge further denied Eastman's second choice, "Taxpayer Advocate/Attorney", but accepted his third choice, "Constitutional Law Attorney". Such designations typically reflect a candidate's current employment or elected office. [26] Eastman finished second in the three-way Republican primary with 34.2% of the vote, behind Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley, who received 47.3%.[27] Cooley advanced to the 2010 California Attorney General election, where he was defeated by Kamala Harris.[28]

Eastman is chairman of the Federalist Society's Federalism & Separation of Powers practice group.[29][30] He is chairman of the board of the National Organization for Marriage[31][32] and a director of the Public Interest Legal Foundation.[33] He is both a member of the board[34] and on the faculty at the Claremont Institute.[35] He sits on the board of advisors of St. Monica's Academy[36] and the advisory board of the St. Thomas More Law Society of Orange County.[37]

In August 2020, Newsweek published an op-ed by Eastman questioning 2020 vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris's eligibility for the office. He asserted she could not be a U.S. citizen by birth despite being born in Oakland, California, if neither of her parents was a permanent resident at the time of her birth. Eastman said that she could have subsequently obtained citizenship derived from the naturalization of her parents if one of them had become a citizen prior to her 16th birthday in 1980, which would have allowed Harris to fulfill the nine-year citizenship requirement required to become a senator.[38]

Many prominent legal scholars disagreed with Eastman's position, and many compared it to the birther-ism theory against President Barack Obama. Newsweek defended the column, while acknowledging that it was "horrified that this op-ed gave rise to a wave of vile Birtherism directed at Senator Harris". It stated there was no connection between the op-ed and the birther movement. Rather, the op-ed focused on the "long-standing, somewhat arcane legal debate about the precise meaning of the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' and the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment", also known as the jus sanguinis or jus soli debate.[39] However, Axios noted that most constitutional scholars do not accept Eastman's view, labeling it "baseless." Axios also criticized him for brushing off the eligibility concerns of 2016 presidential candidate Ted Cruz, born in Calgary, Canada, in a 2016 National Review op-ed, claiming they were "silly".[40]

Many academics dismissed Eastman’s legal argument. Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of Berkeley Law School, told BBC: "Under section 1 of the 14th Amendment, anyone born in the United States is a United States citizen. The Supreme Court has held this since the 1890s. Kamala Harris was born in the United States."[41] Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe was similarly dismissive, telling The New York Times “I hadn’t wanted to comment on [Eastman’s idea] because it’s such an idiotic theory. There is nothing to it.”[42] One day after it published Eastman's op-ed, Newsweek published an opinion piece by legal scholar, Eugene Volokh, titled "Yes, Kamala Harris is Eligible to be Vice President," in which Volokh argues that Harris is a "natural-born citizen" under the U.S. Constitution and is therefore eligible to be vice president.[43]

On December 9, 2020, Eastman represented U.S. President Donald Trump in a motion to intervene in Texas v. Pennsylvania, a case filed directly in the U.S. Supreme Court by Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, in which the state of Texas sought to annul the voting processes and, by extension, the electoral college results of at least four other states. Eastman’s brief included an array of unfounded claims and asserted “It is not necessary for [Trump] to prove that fraud occurred,” but it was necessary only to show elections “materially deviated” from the intent of state lawmakers, adding, “By failing to follow the rule of law, these officials put our nation's belief in elected self-government at risk.”[44][45][46] Two days later, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, finding that Texas did not have standing. It did not address the merits of any of Texas's claims.[47] On December 13, 2020, 159 Chapman University faculty (including two from the law school) published a statement condemning Eastman for the filing.[48]

On January 2, 2021, Eastman reportedly participated in a Zoom call that Trump joined with legislators from Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to talk about allegations of voter fraud.[49][50] On January 5, 2021, Eastman met with Vice President Mike Pence in the Oval Office to argue incorrectly that the vice president has the constitutional authority to alter or otherwise change electoral votes.[51] Pence rejected Eastman's argument and instead agreed with his counsel, Greg Jacob, and conservative legal scholars and other Pence advisors, such as John Yoo and J. Michael Luttig. Pence later released a letter stating he would not attempt to intervene in the certification process, citing Luttig by name, who later said it was "the highest honor of my life" to be involved in preserving the Constitution.[51][8][9][10]

On January 6, Eastman spoke alongside Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani at the "Save America" rally that preceded the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, asserting that balloting machines contained "secret folders" that altered voting results.[52][53][54][55] On January 9, 2021, the Chairman of Chapman's Board of Trustees and two other members (including former Democratic Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez) called on the university's President and Provost and the law school's Dean "to promptly take action against Eastman for his role in the events of Jan. 6." Eastman responded that he was speaking two miles away from the Capitol building.[56][57]

On January 13, 2021, Chapman University announced that Eastman had agreed to retire from the university. Daniele C. Struppa, the university president, said that "Chapman and Dr. Eastman have agreed not to engage in legal actions of any kind, including any claim of defamation that may currently exist, as both parties move forward".[58] Eastman published a statement the next day saying that those who publicly condemned him "have created such a hostile environment for me that I no longer wish to be a member of the Chapman faculty, and am therefore retiring from my position, effective immediately." He said he would continue with his Spring 2021 position as Visiting Professor of Conservative Thought and Policy at the University of Colorado and intended to then devote full-time effort to his position as Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.[57][59] The University of Colorado cancelled Eastman's Spring 2021 courses due to low enrollment.[60] The university also revoked some of Eastman's public-facing duties but permitted him to conduct scholarship.[61][11]

Appearing on CNN on January 23 to argue that the Trump rally did not incite the siege of the Capitol, Eastman asserted that "a paramilitary group as well as antifa groups" had been organizing "three or four days ahead of time." Eastman asserted this had been reported by The Washington Post days earlier, though the article he appeared to reference did not support his assertion and did not mention antifa.[62][63][64] The FBI had announced two weeks earlier there was no evidence of antifa involvement in the siege.[65] Eastman referred to an "antifa and BLM guy" who had been arrested after the Capitol incursion, an apparent reference to a Utah man who some characterized as an "antifa leader" who had supposedly infiltrated the rally crowd to instigate the insurgency. Federal authorities had not identified the man as a member of antifa.[66] Black Lives Matter Utah had for months disassociated itself from the man on concerns he might be associated with the Proud Boys.[67][68]