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, the University of Chicago, and other schools. He is a New York Times best-selling author of The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage (available here) and “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution” (#2 on NY Times Bestseller List).
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 2024, a G.W. alum endowed a fellowship after him, “The Professor Jonathan Turley Public Interest and Public Service Summer Fellowship.”
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. (He was ultimately cleared of all charges in 2026). In 2020, the federal court found that there was 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 served as an expert defense witness in the extradition proceedings of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in London. Turley was asked to testify on the likely pre-trial, trial, and appellate issues facing Mr. Assange as well as the prison conditions that he could expect upon extradition to Northern Virginia for trial.
Professor Turley also agreed to serve as lead counsel representing the Brown family from the TLC program “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 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 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 with 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. He has testified over 100 times in the House and the Senate. 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 ranked in the top five most popular law professors on Twitter and 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 his 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.
In 2024, the Washingtonian recognized Turley as one of the most influential persons in shaping policy. 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 was 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. In addition to teaching a course on the Supreme Court and the Constitution, he is on the board of the Supreme Court Historical Society.
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.
Twitter: @jonathanturley
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” and “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Icon made by DinosoftLabs from Flaticon
Hi Prof Turley,
I agree with all who voiced their appreciation for you and the riveting interest you compel during television appearances on PBS, (The Jim Lehrer News Hour, formerly MacNeil/Lehrer) and your recent debate on NPR with Harvard law professor Charles Fried. You are brilliant yet humble, powerful and persuasive, yet always a gentleman.
Prof Turley, if a judge alters a court transcript materially, by erasing and recording over portions of it, in order to cover-up the nature of his conduct, could this be considered a criminal act?
Filing formal complaints of judicial misconduct rarely result in any disciplinary action. Do you believe the means to address issues involving judicial corruption, even with the implementation of the Breyer recommendations, are sufficient?
Would you consider making your class lectures available on the internet? You could teach (reach) the law to thousands.
Keep up your astonishing work.
George
Response (hope I’m doing this correctly):
Campbell Brown
Transparency?? How come there’s no hue & cry over sealed college records &, my goodness, no birth certificate to validate legitimacy for presidential stature? Mr. Turley was quoted in the St. Petersberg Times, expressing concern that Obama might not be seen as the “real” President because of a botched oath at swearing in. How ludicris is this concern in comparison to the blatant stonewalling by BO not opening up his records?? Have we heard Mr. Turley’s thought(s) on this matter?? Other than Phillip Berg, no one seems to have the stomach to express concern, when even Obamaites speak of being appalled at his lack of “transparency.
Mr. Turley, are you there?
TF
Mr. Turley
I’m new at this. I wonder if anyone gets a chance for a discourse with you? If I post a question, is it possible you might respond?
Tom
Commentary: Obama breaks his own rules already
By Campbell Brown
January 23, 2009
CNN
(CNN) — Just a couple of nights ago, we heaped praise on the new president for announcing what he called a new era of openness, where in his administration, transparency would rule the day.
And the lobbyists that he was so critical of during the campaign? Well, he told us they will now face even tougher new restrictions.
President Obama: “The executive order on ethics I will sign shortly represents a clean break from business as usual. As of today, lobbyists will be subject to stricter limits than under any other administration in history. If you are a lobbyist entering my administration, you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on, or in the agencies you lobbied during the previous two years. When you leave government, you will not be able to lobby my administration for as long as I am president.”
Well, anyway that’s what President Obama said two days ago. But as we first told you Thursday Obama already wants and will get an exception to his own new rule.
You see, what happened is, there is this former lobbyist for a big defense contractor called Raytheon. Obama wants him to be deputy defense secretary. So, he wants a waiver to his own rule – now.
That means Obama is saying he will put tough new restrictions on lobbyists, except when he won’t.
Really? Is this how it is going to be? Just three days into this administration?
What is your opinion of the employee Free Choice Act—the card check proposal for certifying union representation?
I know labor law may not be your specialty but I respect your opinion on a wide range of legal issues—and believe that unlike most lawyers, you’ll tell me if this isn’t your interest.
I always felt, as a former field examiner with the NLRB, that the NLRA could be improved by adding more punitive measures when employers flagrantly violate worker rights. I also felt that the secret ballot election was the best possible way to determine worker preferences but that employers had too many tools to delay the election and diminish the majority standing of the union. Issues brought up in hearings which took forever, might be issues to discuss after the election.
In other words, I believe a speedy election is essential for the unions to have a fair chance and a secret ballot election is essential to truly express the wishes of the employees without coercion. Can this be achieved without a card check law? Your thoughts, please.
Mary Ann
Rachel:
you cast pearls before swine. these jackanapes will respond by requesting your head. Dont waste your time trying to explain the obvious to them. Namely Osama wants our collective heads.
These are the people Obama wants to release from GITMO:
The American soldier Al Queda member Omar Khadr killed with a grenade when he was 15 was an ARMY MEDIC.
A MEDIC……………….a person who SAVES lives. A MEDIC.
An introduciton to the Khadr family:
“We are an Al Qaeda family.” So spoke one of the Khadrs, a Muslim Canadian household whose near single-minded devotion to Osama bin Laden contains important lessons for the West.
In 1985, in the course of working in Afghanistan, Khadr met bin Laden and became his close associate. Sometimes Khadr was described as the highest ranking of Al Qaeda’s 75 Canadian operatives.
In 1996, he and his wife set up an Islamic charity they named “Health and Education Project International.” When the Taliban took control in Afghanistan a few months later, the parents and their six children decamped there. As he worked closely with bin Laden, Khadr became known for his militant Islamic vitriol, leading one Frenchman in Afghanistan to observe about him,” I never met such hostility, someone so against the West.”
Like other Al Qaeda leaders, Khadr disappeared from view soon after 9/11. He spent two years on the lam, reappearing only in October 2003,when Pakistani forces unexpectedly found that the DNA of one unrecognizable corpse from a bloody shootout matched Khadr’s.
The terrorism-related activities of other Khadr family members — wife, one of two daughters, three of four sons — complement their patriarch’s record.
Wife Maha Elsamnah took her then 14-year-old son Omar from Canada to Pakistan in 2001 and enrolled him for Al Qaeda training.
Daughter Zaynab, 23, was engaged to one terrorist and married, with Osama bin Laden himself present at the nuptials, a Qaeda member in 1999. Zaynab endorses the 9/11 atrocities and hopes her infant daughter will die fighting Americans.
Son Abdullah, 22, is a Qaeda fugitive constantly on the move to elude capture. Canadian intelligence states he ran a Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan during the Taliban period, something Abdullah denies.
Son Omar, 17, stands accused of hurling a grenade in July 2002, killing an American medic in Afghanistan. Omar lost sight in one eye in the fighting and is now a U.S. detainee in Guantánamo.
Son Abdul Karim, 14, half-paralyzed by wounds sustained in the October 2003 shoot-out that left his father dead, is presently prisoner in a Pakistani hospital.
Fortunately, there is also one positive story:
Son Abdurahman, 21, reluctantly trained with Al Qaeda, was captured by coalition forces in November 2001 and agreed to work for the Central Intelligence Agency in Kabul, Guantánamo, and Bosnia. He returned to Canada in October 2003, where he denounced both extremism (”I want to be a good, strong, civilized, peaceful Muslim” ) and his family’s terroristic ways.
right and left can never get along. I suggest we split up the country into the 2 camps. We can have red states and blue states. We can flip for which coast we get. then the left can have their own country and so can the right. It has come down to this and it is time to stop the nonsense and get it over with.
Can we amend the constitution to do this?
right and left can never get along. I suggest we split up the country into the 2 camps. We can have red states and blue states. We can flip for which coast we get. then the left can have their own country and so can the right. It has come down to this and it is time to stop the nonsense and get it over with.
Can we amend the constitution to do this?
The left warned that GW would pardon those involved in torture activities, those involved in falsifying rationale for initiating the Iraq war, and/or to those involved in the secret wiretapping/spying program that circumvented FISA.
QUESTION: Assuming the left was/is correct, what would’ve prevented GW secretly issuing pardons to anyone involved in the BUSH administration despicable/illegal activities. Given GW’s and Cheney’s use of secrecy, don’t we have to assume that GW would’ve classified the pardons in such a way so as to prevent the general public from knowing about the existence of the pardons? Especially since names of those performing the activities being pardoned are/were also “classified”?
ping post this:
OBAMA GONNA TORTURE TOO!
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090116/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_interrogations
Obama advisers are considering adding a classified loophole to the rules that could allow the CIA to use some interrogation methods not specifically authorized by the Pentagon, the officials said. …
For Obama, who repeatedly insisted during the 2008 presidential campaign and the transition period that “America doesn’t torture,” a classified loophole would allow him to follow through on his promise to end harsh interrogations while retaining a full range of presidential options in conducting the war against terrorism.
The proposed loophole, which could come in the form of a classified annex to the manual, is designed to satisfy intelligence experts who fear that an outright ban of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques would limit the government in obtaining threat information that could save American lives. It would also preserve Obama’s flexibility to authorize any interrogation tactics he might deem necessary for national security.
OBAMA DOES A 180 ON “TORTURE” AND YA’LL ARE SILENT!
HEY TURLEY, WERE YOU THERE WHEN THE SON OF A FALN VICTIM SPOKE OUT AGAINST HOLDER? WHY ARE YOU SO SILENT?
Eric Holder illustrates the dangers of ambition married to weak character. His subservience to the interests of Bill Clinton in approving the corrupt pardon of Marc Rich and the indefensible pardons of the FALN terrorists was a disgrace. His role in these pardons should disqualify him for higher office.
Holder himself does not defend his role in the Rich pardon. He concedes it was a mistake. He claims somewhat paradoxically that he learned so much from his mistake that he will be a better Attorney General. Holder makes no such concession or claim in the case of the FALN terrorists.
Joseph Connor is the son of one of their victims. He testified against Holder in the confirmation hearing yesterday. In “Terrorists killed my father,” Connor writes:
At the time of the [FALN] pardons, Eric H. Holder Jr. was deputy attorney general. In considering his department’s recommendation on clemency, he met with supporters of the terrorists but ignored their victims. He pushed staff members to drop their strong opposition to a presidential pardon for the FALN members and alter a report they had prepared for the president recommending against clemency. Today, although two turned down their pardons because they were unwilling to renounce violence, many of the convicted FALN members walk free. And a man who was instrumental in their release may become the highest law enforcer in the land.
Dr Turley,
I’ve seen you many times on TV and have become a fan of yours. I’d like to share with you a growing concern of mine and possibly get some insight from you.
I am of the opinion that the Bush regime has been one of the 3 most damaging administrations in our history with the main positive possibly being AIDs aid to Africa. In my opinion he has ignored and violated our laws, Constitution, and Congress. Worst of all, he initiated a preemptive war in Iraq for reasons that he lied about. In addition to 4,000 + Americans there have been an estimated 600k – 700k Iraqians killed and 2M displaced – a horrendous cost for a nation that had not harmed us.
In addition, we’re now hearing so many of our politicians and pundits debate the validity of preemptive war and torture. Obama has signaled that he does not want to investigate people for potential war crimes making it acceptable for some people to be outside of the law.
Civilization has slowly evolved to the point where we now have the concept of rule by law (including adherence to our constitution, laws, treaties). What disturbs me is that another legacy of Bush is that we are accepting a standard that is less than rule by law all justified in the name of fighting terrorism.
Mr. Turley,
People like you who speak truth to power need to know that they have millions of supporters who do not necessarily have the knowledge, forum, or eloquence to join your chorus but are with you all the way none the less. Rest assured, we are out here and we greatly appreciate your courageous efforts. You are a true Patriot and I can think of no greater honor.
Rock on!
JB
Prof Turley:
I’ve enjoyed your commentary on MSNBC concerning Constitutional Law issues and was wondering if you have considered authoring a book? You’ve awaken in me an interest in the law beyond what is usually portrayed on TV. I’ve checked several sources and was unable to find one (of course, if you point me towards one you HAVE written, I’ll feel the fool).
I think, especially after the last eight years and the promise of the next four, something on Constitutional Law written for us “Joe-the-Plumb…..”, (er, sorry….maybe something written at a slightly higher level) types. Maybe covering the basics of C. Law, sections on the more profound rulings by the Supreme Courts, the esoteric yet important rulings, the stranger or bizarre cases.
Again, I’ve enjoyed your comments.
Kind Regards,
Mike
Dear professor,
Found this typo, thought you might want to correct it:
‘..contempt defenses and it is one of the most *abuses* areas…” I presume you meant to use the word, ‘abused’?
You’re an inspiration to us all…thank you!
Frank
p.s. But I also agree that you, Jonathan Turley, would make an absolutely excellent Attorney General. Like many have stated above, I have listened to you on CSPAN and MSNBC, and immediately stop what I’m doing to ‘listen up’! I have a son in prison, and also many prisoners that I’ve come to know over the past 6 1/2 years since my son was sent to prison, so the issues that you speak about are always close to my heart!
I am watching the confirmation hearings for Eric Holder right now, and I believe that he should be confirmed. He has answered all questions, including the one about whether waterboarding is torture or not, thoughtfully and correctly, and has also taken responsibility for mistakes he made in the past. The only way to avoid making a mistake once in a while is to not do anything! I look forward to the Justice Department that he hopefully will head!
Jonathan,
Did you grow up on 12 Reservoir circle in Canton, Ma. I remember you, Donna and Sharon very well!!! we were at 8 Reservoir Circle… the Coyne’s
Let me know
lets try Bush and Cheney in Texas for crimes against humanity and have a death sentence if convicted! Hang em high and higher.