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
“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.
“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.
“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.
“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.
“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.
“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.
“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.
“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.
Mike,
Or plan on secession from the Obamanation, along with Texas. But, this information is not for publication, so, hopefully, we can rely on you to keep our secret safe,
Tom
Sorry, kent, but Comrade Kramer spoke out of turn and will have to be silenced by the proletariat. Our master plan was not to be revealed until we had completed the nationalization of the banks and their bourgeois lackeys on Wall Street. The people of Kentucky refused to support the revolution. Now let them look to Mitch McConnell for succor.
February 1, 2009Obama: “Let Them Eat Steak”
Is Barack Obama an insensitive lout who serves $100 per pound steaks to his elite guests and turns up the heat in the White House high enough to grow orchids while a million of his countrymen are without power and dozens are freezing to death?
Many on the web–but no one in the mainstream media–have commented on the fact that Obama has not even pretended to do anything about the massive ice storm that has disabled much of Kentucky and neighboring states. It took days for FEMA to swing into action. Why is that not a scandal? Days went by before Kentucky’s governor called out the National Guard. Why did no one blame Obama for failing to call out the Guard sooner? Probably because he lacks the constitutional power to do so; but the Constitution hasn’t changed since 2005.
What Katrina taught the media was that they could hurt Bush by lying. What 2008 taught them was that they could help Obama by not reporting at all. What will 2009 teach them? I shudder to think.
A basic reality of our time is that our mass media are monolithic, and what they choose to report (or not report) depends on what fits the narrative they are pushing on the public. If our reporters and editors wanted to portray Obama as clueless and out of touch with ordinary Americans, he has given them ample opportunity to do so. But because they are Democrats and he is a Democrat, they have no desire to tell that story. So “let them eat steak” is not a theme you’ll be seeing on the evening news.
500,000 people without power in the east, dozens of deaths, people freezing in unheated homes.
Obama turns the Oval Office heat up to 77 degrees and spends the day at the Superball hoisting $25 drinks paid for by taxpayers.
Shameful and I see the world and Americans are noticing.
Dear Bron98 & Global Warming….,
It does seem the heat has been turned up in here, despite BO’s admonishment to the common folk that it’s necessary to “keep the heat turned down”. I found this blog because I wanted to get Prof. Turley’s opinion about the media’s disregard for misdeeds that are afoot in Gomorah (D.C, if you would). Courts failing to administer their sworn duties to the people they serve, politicians who ignore the wishes of the people who elected them, who sell their votes to line their pockets, media hacks who ignore issues because their audiences will be offended (or their management mandates are contrary to the facts because of political conflict) as was well evidenced in our last election. For instance, just imagine John McCain had won the election but refused to prove his legitimacy to hold the office of the President. Wonder how our left-wing liberals
might react? You think, perhaps, they might demand evidence be provided to prove the Constitutional right to be seated?? How do you think the courts might respond to their demands?? Since our courts have demonstrated their unwillingness to hear Conservatives’ demands, one might be led to believe they’d be on McCain in a Chicago minute. Obama’s attack on talk show narrators (which does seem, to many, to be an attack on our Constitutional rights for freedom of speech) is very likely to undermine his credibility in the eyes of the citizenry. His lobbist cabinet members are a direct contradiction to his promise to exclude them from the White House. His choices of two tax-evading, caught red-handed, minions are certainly no break from old, long-standing Washington practices that he promised to keep out of his “administration”.
Many of us wonder why he is not held to task on these issues that openly conflict with all his promises to his followers that there would be “CHANGE”. Maybe these followers weren’t subconsciously expecting better, so they see nothing wrong with all this. Or, it could be the Kool-aid.
Tom Fitchue (a.k.a. troll?)
One million without power freezing and Obama sets the Oval Office thermostat to a toasty tropical setting that you could grow Orchids in, according to David Axlerod, senior advisor. Axlerod’s response, “He is from Hawaii.”!
Obama has told America the days of setting our thermostats to 72 degress are over. We can’t do it, but he can, while millions freeze without power.
Glitch seens to be gone.
As a troll I am not worried about this site. I wish more of my kind would come here. I actually have learned quite a bit. There is nothing to fear from another point of view unless you are staring up the barrel of a gun while being talked to.
Come on trolls, take it to the bozone.
There is something bogus at Google. It does cough up that warning message.
But if the MSN brower, Live Search, is used, there is no warning message.
And on both Google and MSN, the McAfee SiteAdvisr says:
“We’ve tested this site and found it to be safe.”
It is probably a technical glitch. I doubt if the trolls are smart enough to do this.
Mespo,
I too got the google “bad site” message when I tried to google Prof. Turley’s site. those nasty trolls are getting upset over people actually pointing out the error in their ways.
JT:
This blog must really have the troll population worried. I noticed when I Googled the site a warning comes up that it “might harm your computer.” You may want to discuss that with Google to get your name off the list “no surf” list.
JT:
“…but what explains that paisan Giuliani?”
*****************
Genetic anomaly or cardiac resection.
Mespo:
Sorry for the delay but indeed I am half Italian. My mother’s family was named Piazza. My grandmother’s family was named Moscato and LaCort. I agree with your view of Italians who desire both good wine and good justice, but what explains that paisan Giuliani?
Mr. Fitchue:
I would not waste my time you are dealing with a good many mental incompetents on this web site. They think taxes are good and putting your money in your pocket bad. they think that water boarding is more immoral than Lt. Calley killing those civilians in Vietnam. They think that they are all about protecting the constitution at the same time calling for more regulations that make us less free. the mind of a liberal is a scary place enter if you dare.
Dear MSNBC,
I’m a new-to-blogging person trying to become accustomed to the process. I started off initialy trying to draw Prof. Turley into a discourse on how the Media buffers Obama from serious issues of concern. One of the other posters has given feedback to my questions/comments/concerns that I have found quite enlighting. It seems that some (if not all) of my issues were drawn from information from sources considered slanted in their content. I have/had become quite disenchanted with the junk we’ve been fed by all the media that have actually (in some isolated instances) acknowledged they were mandated to NOT raise issues that were deemed taboo (muslim terrorists is now off-limits, as an example) because they might offend some faction. Issues of birthright are ignored as being “already documented WITHOUT A DOUBT”. The lack of response to this issue without media acknowledgement only proves, in my eyes, the depth of how far the “TRUTH” has fallen from standards in place since this country was founded. Never in my lifetime have I felt the corruption in our courts and government to be so predominate.
I’m sure to draw some fire over this “blog”, but I doubt it will come from Prof. Turley.
Tom Fitchue
In November 2007 Barack Obama told his supporters in a speech just played on MSNBC that he would employ “ZERO” lobbyists in his White House.
He now has 8 lobbyists employed in his White House – and this report is courtesy of non other than MSNBC – the network fast getting tired of Barack Obama ruining its market share.
Mr. Turley, just WHEN are you going to start challenging these mistakes Mr. Obama is making almost daily? Or is the pittance you get for appearing on Olbermann and Maddow’s show worth corrupting the values virtually all parents wish to instill in their children – by chance maybe even you.
Mike,
Thanks again for your time and insight. I’m not very skilled on researching for information. I earlier tried to find access to the Supreme Court activities, with no success. I even mailed letters to all nine Judges, asking them to hear the birthright verification issue. I’m reluctant to randomly open sites for fear of taking out my computer, even though I have “protection”. This does limit my searches.
I believe the that Supreme Court Judges were to have met privately to review the validity of another suit filed to petition Obama’s records. There was no decision proffered by the Court publicly, as had been the case in an earlier petition. Will you give me the name of the site where you found your information? Wonder if either Bush attended such a meeting with the Judges? Seems like a big jump from Reagan to Clinton.
I appreciate the time you’ve spent responding to my issues.
Tom
Tom, when I last responded to you, I had not had an opportunity to check into the meeting you inquired about. I had asked you for a source, but you only provided worldnet. I am familiar with that site; it is almost a classic example of what I warned about earlier, a small group of people who see a conspiracy around every corner. It is not a source of factual information, and should not be regarded in that manner. In any event, I did a search, including the Supreme Court site. The meeting you mentioned was a ceremonial visit to the Supreme Court at the invitation of Chief Justice Roberts (whose appointment, you may recall, was opposed by then Sen. Obama). The vice president was also present. The same sort of visit occurred following the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Bill Clinton in 1992. The Chief Justice is attempting to establish the visit as a traditional event for each incoming administration (sort of like the Prime Minister of England calling upon the Archbishop of Canterbury). There was certainly nothing nefarious about it. And to correct an error in your post, the Supreme Court did not rule on anything relating to the president “a few days after the meeting.” The last case the court refused to hear was thrown out on December 15th.
I also did some other research. The worldnet sniping is fueled in large part by a California dentist named Orly Taitz. She attended dental school in Israel. Several years ago she graduated from an unaccredited law school in California and has been attempting to litigate the citizenship issue, one of at least a dozen cases filed to date. She has no credentials as a legal scholar, let alone a Constitutional lawyer.
Finally, I suggest that your perception that half of the population is concerned about the president’s birthplace is substantially off the mark. This goes back to the problem I discussed earlier. If I restrict my sources of information to admitted propagandists, such as the folks at worldnet, or believe nothing other than what I read in the Daily Worker, I will soon develop a rather skewed view of reality. Each generation has its extremists. You are old enough to remember the John Birch Society or “None Dare Call It Treason,” a book which attempted to pick up the gauntlet of anti-communism following the public humiliation of Sen. McCarthy. I have in my possession a book published this past year in Florida and delivered gratis to my home. Its thesis is that the Jesuits are pursuing a long-term strategy to assume complete political power in this country. I have kept the book as an example of some of the most virulent anti-Catholicism I have ever encountered. You get the picture.
The digging I did you can certainly do well enough yourself. When people feel they are unfairly attacked on this blog, it is usually because they appear to be simply parroting views they have picked up from someplace, rather than rationally discussing their own ideas. If you take the time to verify what you read (particularly on a site that has a pronounced agenda) before you repeat it, you will likely find that you have less to say, but that what you do offer is more interesting and cogent.
Mike,
Again, I thank you for taking the time to tell me about your history, especially about your father’s reaction to Ike. I can tell by the depth of feeling that you express that you’re probably much more versed and introspective than I am. I would have also guessed your age around forty, don’t ask me why, tho.
My concern is the enormous lack of tranparency (again, an Obama talking point with little evidence on display) and, the ability to be chambered with 8 sitting Supreme Court Judges who, only a few days later, declined to hear a Constitionally based lawsuit that probably over half the nation wanted opened to prove once and for all, Obama’s right to be President. You did not comment on the private session incident. Most diehard Obama followers will NOT debate the birth issue, stating that it doesn’t exist nor matter.
Stonewalling at its best. It makes no sense to me that, were he capable of producing conclusive proof, why he chooses not do so. Transparency is a great word to sell, but it takes honor and true dedication to walk the walk. An honorable man, wanting to bring the nation together, might have strived to remove this cloud and helped bring the people to rally around him. Arrogance (Supreme Court, the statement “I won”, the fact that Republicans are being berated for sticking together while the Democrats are equally unified in their postitions , with very little criticism) is in full swing. But, that IS politics as usual, especially when one side holds a winning majority.
I don’t know how long you’ll stay in this exchange of views, but I will look forward to its continuation. It’d be interesting were we living closely enough, to meet you and talk to you personally. And, really interesting if Prof. Turley would join in.
Tom Fitchue