JONATHAN TURLEY
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, University of Chicago, and other schools.
After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades including the representation of whistleblowers, military personnel, judges, members of Congress, and a wide range of other clients. He is also one of the few attorneys to successfully challenge both a federal and a state law — leading to courts striking down the federal Elizabeth Morgan law as well as the state criminalization of cohabitation.
In 2010, Professor Turley represented Judge G. Thomas Porteous in his impeachment trial. After a trial before the Senate, Professor Turley (on December 7, 2010) argued both the motions and gave the final argument to all 100 U.S. Senators from the well of the Senate floor — only the 14th time in history of the country that such a trial of a judge has reached the Senate floor. Judge Porteous was convicted of four articles of impeachments, including the acceptance of $2000 from an attorney and using a false name on a bankruptcy filing.
In 2011, Professor Turley filed a challenge to the Libyan War on behalf of ten members of Congress, including Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md); Dan Burton (R., Ind.); Mike Capuano (D., Mass.); Howard Coble (R., N.C.); John Conyers (D., Mich.); John J. Duncan (R., Tenn.); Tim Johnson (R., Ill.); Walter Jones (R., N.C.); Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio); and Ron Paul (R., Tx). The lawsuit was before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
In November 2014, Turley agreed to serve as lead counsel to the United States House of Representatives in its constitutional challenge to changes ordered by President Obama to the Affordable Care Act. The litigation was approved by the House of Representatives to seek judicial review of the claims under the separation of powers. On May 12, 2016, the federal court handed down a historic victory for the House and ruled that the Obama Administration violated the separation of powers in ordering billions to be paid to insurance companies without an appropriation of Congress.
Other cases include his representation of the Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada; the nuclear couriers at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado; Dr. Eric Foretich, the husband in the famous Elizabeth Morgan custody controversy; and four former United States Attorneys General during the Clinton impeachment litigation. In the Foretich case, Turley succeeded recently in reversing a trial court and striking down a federal statute through a rare “bill of attainder” challenge. Professor Turley has also served as counsel in a variety of national security cases, including espionage cases like that of Jim Nicholson, the highest ranking CIA officer ever accused of espionage. Turley also served as lead defense counsel in the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. Turley also served as defense counsel in the case of Dr. Tom Butler, who is faced criminal charges dealing with the importation and handling of thirty vials of plague in Texas. He also served as counsel to Larry Hanauer, the House Intelligence Committee staffer accused of leaking a classified Presidential National Intelligence Estimate to the New York Times. (Hanauer was cleared of all allegations).
Among his current cases, Professor Turley represents Dr. Ali Al-Timimi, who was convicted in Virginia in 2005 of violent speech against the United States. In 2020, the federal court found that there merit in the challenges raised by Professor Turley and his co-counsel Tom Huff. Accordingly, the judge ordered his release to protect him from Covit-19 while the Court prepared a decision on the challenges. Pursuant to a court order, Dr. Al-Timimi was released from the Supermax in Colorado and the two drove across the country so that he could be placed into home confinement. He also represented Dr. Sami Al-Arian, who was accused of being the American leader of a terrorist organization while he was a university professor in Florida. Turley represented Dr. Al-Arian for eight years, much of which was in a determined defense against an indictment for criminal contempt. The case centered on the alleged violation of a plea bargain by the Justice Department after Dr. Al-Arian was largely exonerated of terrorism charges in Tampa, Florida. On June 27, 2014, all charges were dropped against Dr. Al-Arian. He also represented pilots approaching or over the age of 60 in their challenge to the mandatory retirement age of the FAA. He also represented David Murphee Faulk, the whistleblower who disclosed abuses in the surveillance operations at NSA’s Fort Gordon facility in Georgia.
Professor Turley also agreed to serve as lead counsel representing the Brown family from the TLC “Sister Wives, a reality show on plural marriage or polygamy. On December 13, 2013, the federal court in Utah struck down the criminalization of polygamy — the first such decision in history — on free exercise and due process grounds. On September 26, 2014, the court also ruled in favor of the Browns under Section 1983 — giving them a clean sweep on all of the statutory and constitutional claims. In April 2015, a panel reversed the decision on standing grounds and that decision is now on appeal.
Professor Turley was also lead counsel in the World Bank protest case stemming from the mass arrest of people in 2002 by the federal and district governments during demonstrations of the IMF and World Bank. Turley and his co-lead counsel Dan Schwartz (and the law firm of Bryan Cave) were the first to file and represented student journalists arrested without probable cause. In April 2015, after 13 years of intense litigation, the case was settled for $2.8 million, including $115,000 for each arrestee — a record damage award in a case of this kind and over twice the amount of prior damages for individual protesters. The case also exposed government destruction and withholding of evidence as well as the admitted mass arrest of hundreds of people without probable cause.
Professor Turley also served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British of Columbia (Canada) Supreme Court. In the latter case, he argued for the decriminalization of plural union and conjugal unions. In 2012, Turley also represented the makers of “Five Wives Vodka” (Ogden’s Own Distillery) in challenging an effective ban on the product in Idaho after officials declared the product to be offensive to Mormons. After opposing to the ban on free speech and other grounds, the state of Idaho issued a letter apologizing for public statements made by officials and lifting the ban on sale for “Five Wives Vodka.”
Turley has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, including the Florida House of Representatives. He also served as the consultant to the Puerto Rico House of Representatives on the impeachment of Gov. Aníbal Acevedo Vilá.
Professor Turley is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. That testimony includes the confirmation hearings of Attorney General nominees Loretta Lynch and William Barr as well as Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Professor Turley is also a nationally recognized legal commentator. Professor Turley was ranked as 38th in the top 100 most cited “public intellectuals” in the recent study by Judge Richard Posner. Turley was also found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. He has been repeatedly ranked in the nation’s top 500 lawyers in annual surveys (including in the latest rankings by LawDragon) – one of only a handful of academics. In prior years, he was ranked as one of the nation’s top ten lawyers in military law cases as well as one of the top 40 lawyers under 40. He was also selected in the last five years as one of the 100 top Irish lawyers in the world. In 2016, he was ranked as one of the 100 most famous (past and present) law professors.
Professor Turley is one of only two academics to testify at both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings. In December 2019, Professor Turley was called as the one Republican witness in the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings. He appeared with three Democratic witnesses. Professor Turley disagreed with this fellow witnesses in opposing the proposed articles of impeachments on bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations or obstruction of justice. He argued that these alleged impeachable acts were at odds with controlling definitions of those crimes and that Congress has historically looked to the criminal code and cases for guidance on such allegations. The committee ultimately rejected those articles and adopted the only two articles that Professor Turley said could be legitimately advanced: abuse of power, obstruction of Congress. Chairman Jerrold Nadler even ended the hearing by quoting his position on abuse of power. However, Turley opposed impeachment on this record as incomplete and insufficient for submission to the Senate. He argued for the House to wait and complete the record by seeking to compel key witnesses like former National Security Adviser John Bolton. His testimony was later relied upon in the impeachment floor debate by various House members and he was cited by both the White House and House managers in their arguments before the United States Senate in the Trump impeachment trial, including videotaped remarks played at the trial.
Professor Turley’s articles on legal and policy issues appear regularly in national publications with hundreds of articles in such newspapers as the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal. He is a columnist for USA Today and writes regularly for the Washington Post. In 2005, Turley was given the Columnist of the Year award for Single-Issue Advocacy for his columns on civil liberties by the Aspen Institute and the Week Magazine. Professor Turley also appears regularly as a legal expert on all of the major television networks. Since the 1990s, he has worked under contract as the on-air Legal Analyst for NBC News, CBS News, BBC and Fox News. Professor Turley has been a repeated guest on Sunday talk shows with over two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox Sunday. Professor Turley has taught courses on constitutional law, constitutional criminal law, environmental law, litigation, and torts. He is the founder and executive director of the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS). His work with older prisoners has been honored in various states, including his selection as the 2011 recipient of the Dr. Mary Ann Quaranta Elder Justice Award at Fordham University.
His award-winning blog is routinely ranked as one of the most popular legal blogs by AVVO. His blog was selected as the top News/Analysis site in 2013, the top Legal Opinion Blog in 2011 as well as prior selections as the top Law Professor Blog and Legal Theory Blog. It was also ranked in the top 20 constitutional law blog in 2018. It has been regularly ranked by the ABA Journal in the top 100 blogs in the world. In 2012, Turley has selected as one of the top 20 legal experts on Twitter by Business Insider. In 2013, the ABA Journal inducted the Turley Blog into its Hall of Fame.
Professor Turley received his B.A. at the University of Chicago and his J.D. at Northwestern. In 2008, he was given an honorary Doctorate of Law from John Marshall Law School for his contributions to civil liberties and the public interest.
For further information: Mr. Seth Tate – 202-994-0537
Icon made by DinosoftLabs from Flaticon
Obama Flip-Flops on FISA
Standing with his party’s hard-left wing through the primary season, Barack Obama consistently opposed granting immunity to telecoms who cooperated with the federal government’s foreign terrorist surveillance program in the years after September 11. Obama went even farther by vowing to oppose any cloture motion on the FISA reform bill as long as it included telecom immunity. Jake Tapper has assembled the quotes, including this one from Obama’s Senate office in December:
Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd’s efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same….Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster.
Like everything Barack Obama says, that pledge was operative only as long as it was in Obama’s political interest. Last month, he announced a change in position. He still favored the Dodd amendment to strip telecom immunity from the act, but said he would now vote in favor of cloture and in favor of final passage of the FISA reform bill.
Today, the FISA bill came up for a series of votes in the Senate. Consistent with the new position he announced last month, Obama voted for the Dodd amendment, to delete telecom immunity from the act. The Dodd amendment failed, 66-32. Later came the cloture vote, the one on which Obama had pledged to vote “No.” Obama voted “Yes.” He then voted with the 69-28 majority in favor of the act.
There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth over Obama’s flip-flop on the Left. The Associated Press wailed and gnashed its teeth a bit over the bill’s passage, as well. This is how the AP began its story on the Senate vote:
Bowing to President Bush’s demands, the Senate sent the White House a bill Wednesday overhauling bitterly disputed rules on secret government eavesdropping and shielding telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans.
The Senate “bowed to President Bush’s demands” in a 69-28 vote? In a parallel universe, the AP might have begun its story, “The Senate voted today, enthusiastically and overwhelmingly, to continue President Bush’s program of keeping Americans safe by spying on terrorists overseas.” But that’s not a world any of us are likely to live long enough to see.
powerline blog.
I believe I shall report martha h for plagarizing other people’s spoken or written words. Come on, martha, use your own talking points, not others!
Anyone else having fun scrolling thru martha’s posts?
Mr. Turley,
Thanks again for your non-partisan opinions. I was glad to hear you call out both parties on the FISA fiasco. The republicons may be the worst offenders in breaking the laws, but the democrats are enablers and culpable. I am very sad today.
I knew your father in Chatham, New York and did a few favors for him: one day he ran out of gas on the way to the office and I took a can of gas to him on the road. It is good to know there are defenders of freedom and the constitution hard at work. Thanks!
Obama answers McCain on deficit with a SHRUG!
posted at 8:31 pm on July 8, 2008
John McCain pledged yesterday to balance the budget by 2013. Barack Obama responded by claiming that it can’t be balanced, and he can’t be bothered to try:
Not only does Obama say he won’t eliminate the deficit in his first term, as McCain aims to do, he frankly says he’s not sure he’d bring it down at all in four years, considering his own spending plans.
“I do not make a promise that we can reduce it by 2013 because I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America’s families,” Obama told reporters this week when asked if he’d match McCain’s pledge.
Democrats have complained for years about the Bush administration deficits. In fact, they routinely use that as one argument against the Iraq war, claiming that it has exploded the deficit. Now are the Democrats about to say that the deficit is of no consequence at all, and that spending shouldn’t rely on financing? They insisted on pay-go in 2007, although they broke their own rules in the 2008 budget.
There is a large difference between the McCain and Obama spending plans. Obama would add almost $300 billion in new spending each year, while McCain would add less than $20 billion, and McCain has at least outlined cuts to balance them. The difference becomes more significant with Obama’s stated indifference to the deficit, now and in the future.
This time, Obama won’t just execute a flip-flop for himself. He’s about to force the entire party to do a 180 on deficit spending. When do the backflips cease with Obama?
I have a question for JT.
Is there going to be a point in the future at which you ask MSNBC if there will ever be an opposing viewpoint to the far left chatter you and the other 5 steadies on the show blather about?????
Heck, if Bill Oreilly can immediately have someone on his show almost everynight to challenge him on his viewpoint; why can’t MSNBC?
Almost every night 10 minutes into Bill Oreilly’s show, after he speaks his opnion, he brings someone on with the opposing viewpoint to challenge him.
What is MSNBC, or more importantly, YOU JT, afraid to have opposing viewpoints? Can’t find one in your small liberal world?????
Why do Congressional Democrats fear free speech?
posted at 6:30 pm on July 8, 2008
Efforts in both chambers of Congress have Republicans wondering why Democrats seem to fear free speech. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) has proposed limitations on how Representatives can post information to the Internet in a time when we should be demanding more transparency, not less. According to a source in the Senate, Dianne Feinstein has begun her own campaign to force Senators to seek permission before communicating over the Internet.
Soren Dayton at The Next Right has the story from the House:
In typical fashion, House Democrats are trying to pass rules that stifle debate and require regulation. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on House Administraion Kevin Brady. The letter is a response to a debate about whether the House should allow members to use YouTube, first raised by Rep. Kevin McCarthy back in April. …
Well, Capuano’s proposal is a disaster. It creates a list of sites, maintained by the Committee on House Administration that members are allowed to post material. Except, those sites have a caveat:
To the maximum extent possible, official content should not be posted on a website or page where it may appear with commercial or political information or any other information not in compliance with the House’s content guidelines.
In the Senate, the problem gets even worse. Feinstein (D-CA) would have the Rules Committee act as a censor board, forcing members to get approval for the act of communicating on external websites. Further, it would appear that the Feinstein proposal would attempt to exercise editorial control over these sites, at least indirectly.
As my source put it, these are the key issues:
Under their scheme, the Senate Rules Committee would become the Internet speech police for everyone in the Senate.
It will be up to the committee to “sanction” which websites and forms of communication they deem appropriate.
The Rules Committee thus gets to pick winners and losers among various websites in terms of which are appropriate for use.
The Rules Committee would get to regulate communication through any site not ending in “senate.gov,” which would include sites like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.
Further, this could jeopardize guest posts at sites like RedState and Townhall.
The Rules Committee would require senators to moderate “any public commentary” which would likely mean regulating comments on guest posts and YouTube videos, among other things.
It also raises a number of questions:
Would this rule extend beyond comments to posts on the site?
Would it affect Slatecard & BlogAds?
How about something like The Ed Morrissey Show, which has a live chatroom? Would that have to be moderated?
The Rules Committee would get to act as the “Content KGB” since it can require the removal of content in violation of Senate Rules. And who determines what’s in violation? The Rules Committee.
There are no similar controls on any other form of communication with the public, such as publishing op-eds in newspapers or appearing on radio or television.
The sudden interest in silencing Congress goes right along with the brand-new 9% approval rating the Democratic leadership has earned Congress. Imagine how much worse it will get when they gag their members and force an end to communication through policy sites, blogs, and Internet media.
Want to ask Feinstein what she’s thinking? Be sure to e-mail her through her website or call the Senate Rules Committee at 202-224-6352 to express your support for free speech and transparency. Ask them what they have to hide that the 9% of Americans who still support them shouldn’t find out.
Update: And let’s not forget Feinstein’s other policy goal —
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for taking those intrusive and annoying pop-ups down! For what it’s worth, you have another loyal, guaranteed regular reader. And while I’m at it, thank you for standing up for our Constitution. Someone sure needs to…
Welcome, Rob and K.C. Don’t mind martha h too much. She is a troll who probably is paid to come here and slime everyone. Too bad she’s part of the Neo-Con crowd–what a boring, power-hungry empty pathetic existence she must have.
The latest news out of Iraq:
Al-Maliki and the Iraqi government have been in talks with the US to draw up a Short Term agreement (can’t call it a TREATY, if Bush does that, then the treaty has to be approved by Congress, and he’s not about to let them have that power to deny it) because the UN mandate calls for all foreign Occupiers to be out of Iraq by this year, December 31, 2008. BUT now the Iraqis are TELLING Bush that they will NOT sign a Long Term agreement, AND they want the US to set a timetable for the troops to leave, after the Iraqi military gains control of the various districts.
Let’s see–as I recall Bush has said that when the Iraqis ask us to leave, we WILL leave. Now I read that Bush is against ANY type of US withdrawal, ANY kind of timetables. Well, Bush, YOU said that we would leave Iraq when the Iraqis want us to–so you have NO other option but to agree to their request. If you defy the Iraqi government on this point, not only will you get not get an ‘agreement’ but you will be showing your true colors of your delusional “Project for the New American Century” agenda of world domination by the US ‘Empire”.
KC, Turley is still funny when he is on Countdown. A regular riot.
Sorry 🙁 I didn’t realize that would post directly to the blog. -KC
I would like to know where I may email a personal note to Jonathan. I am an old family friend who knew him personally when we were both adolescents. I just read what I think was a recent reference to his mother’s driving and, while I don’t necessarily recall the out-of-body experience, I do remember the car–a Mercedes– I think dark, like dark green or black. As I recall, it was perhaps my first ride in a Mercedes, which may be why I remember it.
I hope your mother is well. Mine, as you may have heard, passed on about 10 years ago in Florida.
For that matter, I hope the whole family is well. I imagine the family has become a large extended family since I was in your family’s house back in the 70’s.
Anyway, I have seen Jonathan on television for several years now and always thought it would be nice to say, “hello.”
I am proud of your accomplishments. I remember you as a very funny kid who entertained my family during his visits.
Take it easy,
Kurt “K.C.” Moser
(formerly of Arlington Heights, IL now residing in Los Angeles (Van Nuys), CA)
kacemo@adelphia.net
rob, obviously, you don’t know what you are talking about.
Rob,
This may answer your question, in that it explains how your excellent point is “gotten around” by the wording in the law.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35636leg20080612.html
Jill
Hi Mr. Turley…..Something has been nagging at me during all this FISA/telecom immunity crap, because it was missing, but I couldn’t figure out what it was. Till now. Given your status as a scholar of constitutional law, I’m curious as to your thoughts.
Specifically, what’s been missing is the fact that the congress is going to be passing an unconstitutional act of law.
And no one has been commenting on that fact, especially not Obama, the former law professor.
In Article I/Section 8 of the Constitution it quite clearly states that “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
A law that grants immunity for crimes, after the fact of the crimes, is–by definition–an ex post facto law. Which same the congress is banned from passing.
Any ideas as to why everyone is acting as if the law-to-be is constitutional? You’d think that its blatantly unconstitutional status would be obvious to the meanest intelligence.
Cheers!
Rob
martha, I still have ‘free speech’ so I’ll wish you, Percy, dundar and everyone else here a Happy 4th of July.
PS. Don’t play with fire crackers!
July 3, 2008
Buyer’s remorse? Part Two
Earlier today, John wondered how many Democrats who voted for Barack Obama on the theory that he was a staunch antiwar candidate are having second thoughts. It’s a legitimate question, and it extends beyond the Iraq war. In fact, it turns out that an “internet petition” has been launched to pressure Obama to flip back to opposing legislation that would immunize telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration’s warrantless intercept surveillance program.
The interesting question is not whether Obama will continue to tack towards the center as a candidate — that’s a virtual certainty. The interesting question is what he’ll do if elected president.
It’s almost certain Obama won’t satisfy his leftist supporters when it comes to foreign, defense, and security policy. That’s mostly because Obama is far too intelligent to embrace leftist indifference to obvious national security concerns.
Thus, for reasons of pragmatism, Obama will be quite keen, for example, to prevent a successful attack on the homeland. Indeed, I suspect that Obama’s current position with respect to surveillance of terrorists (including suits against companies that cooperate in that surveillance) is not just the product of strategic political thinking but also a reflection of what he’d like to be able to do as president. Let’s hope so. Odds are that McCain will win this election handily, but in the event Obama pulls out a long shot – don’t expect him to be swinging left on policy.
mary leon: don’t you get tired of repeating that same old huffington post, daily kos garbage? do you even bother to entertain the idea that you are being lied to by leftists with an agenda. i am sorry, but if you are truly 47 years old, i don’t know how you made it this far in life with such idiotic thoughts, ravings, ideas, and imaginations.
here is a thought; your family has you on medications and you refuse to take them, right?
dundar:
I don’t know if you’re joking or not, but if you don’t believe me, look it up yourself.