Over at Powerline:

This is John Eastman’s account of the facts bearing on the Federalist Society reflected in the Claremont Institute statement quoted in my post:

1. I was disinvited from the scholars retreat, on the ground that I was no longer a professor. (I had by then been “retired” from Chapman, and had my classes cancelled at CU Boulder, but was still a professor at Boulder.)

2. I was not invited to the Student Leadership Conference in July, where I have been a speaker on the most popular panel for the past 15 years. I had heard through the grapevine that one of the other usual speakers on the panel refused to participate if I was there, but [Federalist Society] leadership assured me that that was not true; rather, they didn’t want me at the conference because my mere presence would have people debating the election issues, which they did not want, as it would detract from the main purpose of the conference, which is to teach incoming student presidents about how to run a chapter.

3. There was a divisive internal discussion whether to bar me from attending the Napa regional leadership meeting in June, and although I was allowed to attend, I sat through several diatribes against me by others in the meeting.

4. I suggested to [Federalist Society President] Eugene Meyer at that meeting that he could not simply leave the dispute unaddressed, as it would fester. I even proposed that the topic of the election be the focus of the annual Rosenkranz debate at the National Lawyers Convention in November. He ultimately declined, but that was not the extent of efforts to provide me a customary speaking role at the convention. The Federalism/Separation of Powers practice group, which I had been heading for 16 years, wanted to have their panel on issues surrounding the non-delegation doctrine, something for which I have been at the forefront for 20 years. More pointedly, the civil rights practice group specifically asked that I be a speaker for the cancel culture topic they wanted for their panel, but that request was refused.

I’ve been told that they just want the dust to settle on the controversy, but some of the more vicious attacks on me have come from Federalist Society leaders like Jeremy Rosen, with no rebuttal opportunity afforded to me. Letting me engage sometime well down the road when the dust settles on this (if it ever settles) is hardly acceptable….

I think we are dealing with one of the most corrupt and dangerous times in our nation’s history. By chance, I have been thrust into a major role on the ramparts; it remains to be seen whether the rupturing dispute can be addressed civilly by organizations that are supposed to be devoted to such discussion—a precondition for the people being able to steer the course of their government through reflection and choice rather than accident and force, to borrow from Federalist No. 1. The American Political Science Association is irretrievably lost as a forum for serious discussion, but hopefully [the Federalist Society] is not. As we said at the conclusion of the statement, we are open to, and indeed welcome, the debate.

I’m sure the Federalist Society will have more to say, perhaps on the record in the name of one of its senior officers. In the meantime, I thought readers would want to have John Eastman’s account of the facts.

UPDATE [from powerline editor]: I am responsible for the original and current headline of this post. I have altered the original headline and slightly revised my introductory comments to let John Eastman’s account speak for itself without imposing my interpretation of the events recounted. Please note that John has further advised me that the Federalist Society declined demands that his membership in the organization be revoked, or that he be removed from his leadership position on one of the Society’s practice groups.