Colorado’s federal trial court confirmed last week that attorney John C. Eastman, who devised a plan for President Donald Trump to remain in office despite losing the 2020 election, cannot practice in the state’s U.S. District Court due to his disbarment in California.

Under the court’s rules, attorneys cannot be in “good standing” to practice if they are not in good standing everywhere else they are admitted to practice.

Acting on a recommendation from the court’s Committee on Conduct that cited Eastman’s recent disbarment, a three-judge panel denied Eastman’s request to practice despite his lack of good standing in California.

However, only Judges Regina M. Rodriguez and Charlotte N. Sweeney, both of whom are appointees of Joe Biden, signed the Aug. 26 order. Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico, who became the third member of the court’s disciplinary panel earlier this year, did not.

“He had prior knowledge of this matter before being appointed to the disciplinary panel, so he thought it would be prudent not to participate,” the court’s clerk, Jeffrey P. Colwell, told Colorado Politics.

Domenico is a first-term Trump appointee who Trump recently nominated for a seat on the Denver-based federal appeals court.

Eastman was the visiting scholar in conservative thought and policy at the University of Colorado Boulder during the 2020-2021 school year. He also advanced unfounded allegations of voter fraud and election irregularities in multiple swing states after the 2020 presidential election. Eastman drafted memos providing a legal justification for then-Vice President Mike Pence, when presiding over the counting of electoral votes in Congress, to reject swing state votes for Biden and keep Trump in office without a lawful basis.

After a lengthy trial in California, State Bar Court Judge Yvette D. Roland found Eastman had committed misconduct for dishonesty, failure to support the laws and Constitution, and “moral turpitude.” In April, the California Supreme Court rejected Eastman’s petition contesting his disbarment without elaboration.

Since 2020, Eastman has only appeared as counsel in Colorado’s federal district court in three cases, only one of which remains open. In that case, assigned to Judge Philip A. Brimmer, the court terminated Eastman’s electronic filing privileges shortly after Roland’s disciplinary decision deprived Eastman of good standing.

Simultaneously, Judge S. Kato Crews took steps to remove Eastman from another case, but Eastman stepped aside pending a determination about his ability to remain in good standing.

Following the imposition of Eastman’s disbarment this year, he expressed an intent to seek review at the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The California Supreme Court has allowed to stand a State Bar Court recommendation that we contend departs from long-standing United States Supreme Court precedent protecting First Amendment rights, especially in the attorney discipline context,” said Eastman’s attorney, Randall Miller, at the time. “We disagree with that outcome and believe it raises pivotal constitutional concerns regarding the limits of state regulation of attorney speech.”