October 15, 2026 - WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Wednesday, Senator Ted Cruz released the following:
U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal 
Rights, and Mike Lee (R-Utah), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review the disbarment of Dr. John Eastman related to his legal representation of President Donald Trump. In the brief, the senators argue that Supreme Court review is necessary to clarify the constitutional limits on attorney discipline, protect free speech, and safeguard Americans’ right to independent legal counsel.
Excerpts from the amicus brief are below, and the full text of the brief can be viewed here.
“First, attorneys keep their Free Speech Clause rights when they advocate for clients—and that protection must include room to press disputed and even losing arguments. ‘[T]he First Amendment’s protections extend to licensed professionals much as they do to everyone else.’ Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627, 642–43 (2026). And our law develops because advocates ask courts to extend, modify, or reject it.
“Zealous advocacy will disappear if professional survival depends on whether bar regulators later agree with an attorney’s legal analysis. This Court has explained that ‘regulating the content of professionals’ speech poses the inherent risk that the Government seeks not to advance a legitimate regulatory goal, but to suppress unpopular ideas or information.’ NIFLA, 585 U.S. at 771.
“Threatening lawyers’ licenses for controversial advocacy deters willing counsel and therefore burdens clients’ right to petition. A lawyer deciding whether to undertake a controversial representation must account for whether regulators may later characterize his advocacy as unreasonable, false, or professionally forbidden. The prospect of professional exclusion therefore affects representation long before any bar proceeding begins.
“The decision below’s refusal to apply strict scrutiny demands this Court’s review. ‘Because First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive, government may regulate in the area only with narrow specificity.’ Button, 371 U.S. at 433. Yet even as the California Bar pursued an ideological crusade against what the decision below itself called “core political speech,” the Review Department never applied strict scrutiny.”
Source: Senator Ted Cruz