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

Al,
You might want to go back into entries on this blog and take a look at “interactions” between Mike & myself. It’ll give you some expectations about the “mentality” that you’re dealing with. I got on here with the SAME question(s) about eligibility, thinking that there would be un-biased opinions offered on this subject. Constitutional law being what it is.
You have opened up Pandora’s box, because there’s no way anyone I’ve seen herein, will really & honestly address this. Turley is non-existant on such (if not all issues) things that mean’s he has to respond to an unpopular issue – possibly because he know’s of the firestorm that arises from broaching this. And, WHY would he, anyhow? He seems to pick his “fights” very carefully.
You will learn that there ARE some on here that are rational. Indentifing them will be easier if you go back to earlier posts.
There’s even some that have a sense of humor, and enjoy our exchanges. You’ll also note some very obvious meltdowns. Then, you’ll probably be more aware of what you “hear” & what to expect from those that respond to you. Develop a thick skin & you’ll be fine
Tom Fitchue
Good “trolling”! You’ll hear that a lot, too.
Alvin Enns,
I agree with what you state.It puts me to mind though that what happened after 9/11 was a process of scaring the hell out of Americans and convincing them of the stock phrase “Now Everything Has Changed.” This was touted by supposedly serious commentators and by politicians. The presumption was that the US should in effect act as if “no more Mr. Nice guy” was in operative mode. This was interpreted that as because of 9/11 any behavior was justified on our part. By using 9/11 to induce fear in people and by continuing to hype the fear level the then Administration was able to justify an unjustifiable war and treat people as if America was going through an episode of “24.”
In truth nothing had changed. We are supposed to be a nation of laws and values.
Al Ulmer,
Nice work, under the initial guise of reasonability you throw in your red herring of whether our President is a legal citizen.
In truth this is a phony controversy. It is put forth by people who really only believe elections matter when their candidate wins. It is a strain of political thought that not only is Anti-American, but shows a disrepect for American citizens. What people should realize is that running a country and governance, are not the same thing as rooting for their local team. I wonder where your thinking was when GW Bush stole the 2000 election with the help of his brother, or when he stole the 2004 election with the help of Ken Blackwell. My guess is you would have no problem with his legitimacy because your team won.
Alvin Enns,
I agree with what you state.It puts me to mind though that what happened after 9/11 was a process of scaring the hell out of Americans and convincing them of the stock phrase “Now Everything Has Changed.” This was touted by supposedly serious commentators and by politicians. The presumption was that the US should in effect act as if “no more Mr. Nice guy” was in operative mode. This was interpreted that as because of 9/11 any behavior was justified on our part. By using 9/11 to induce fear in people and by continuing to hype the fear level the then Administration was able to justify an unjustifiable war and treat people as if America was going through an episode of “24.”
In truth nothing had changed. We are supposed to be a nation of laws and values.
Al Ulmer,
Nice work, under the initial guise of rasonability you throw in your red herring of whether our President is a legal citizen.
In truth this is a phony controversy. It is put forth by people who really only believe elections matter when their candidate wins. It is a strain of political thought that not only is Anti-American, but shows a disrepect for American citizens. What people should realize is that running a country and governance, are not the same thing as rooting for their local team. I wonder where your thinking was when GW Bush stole the 2000 election with the help of his brother, or when he stole the 2004 election with the help of Ken Blackwell. My guess is you would have no problem with his legitimacy because your team won.
Al,
Pardon the interruption, but you’ll find a wealth of discussion and analysis on these eligibility cases, both by lawyers and other interested people, here on PolitiJab:
http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=6
Jonathan, I appreciate your constitutional insight. Could you/would you address the issue of Natural Born Citizen? Is not Obama a dual citizen through his father, an African under British rule? Additionally, is he not a dual citizen through his adoption by Lolo Soetoro, and Indonesian? Since Obama has spent lots of money to keep his vault copy of his birth certificate secrete, along with passport, college applications, etc from the public.
Re torture and all aspects of rule of law.
I am very appreciative of your appearance on various shows like hardball, Rachel Maddow, etc. talking to the importance of observing our laws let alone our traditions. I am very discouraged at how many politicians and pundits are arguing that violating our laws is justified under extreme conditions.
My guess is that this is another result of accepting the Bush doctrine that a preemptive war is justified. This nation was singularly acquiescent about invading Iraq even though what we heard for justifications were as hollow as an Easter chocolate bunny. We jumped onto the slippery slope.
Now our task is to regain solid ground and I think this must begin with adhering to our laws and prosecuting violators.
Hmmm….well…..certainly we can all agree that torture is indefensible right? Why must we continue to debate it? Indeed, anyone who would even suggest that it is a legitimate form of persuasion is being un-American…that is without question…isn’t it?…Now I ain’t as smart as all of you but I do know what is right and wrong…..Of course I am one who would conclude that anyone who would have supported the Bush Administration in any way is guilty by proxy of the crimes of the Bush Administration….many of which are punishable by death. So, submitting to your eventual execution would be the patriotic thing to do…
i am quite certain we met …when we were young.
I appreciate your voice, your calm,your intellect.
i know Rachel, Keith do!
There are so many “pundits” out there…….
not many with intellect, (sorry).
know u r a welcome breath of truth and intellect.
paece to you
Here’s a story I think you might want to cover.
http://democurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/04/fiction-and-nonfiction-books-about-gay.html
Something happened sometime in the last 30 years, that caused a great number of Americans to attempt to redefine what our country stands for. In the 40’s, 50’s, or 60’s, we would not have found so many people who are so eager to defend torture. What was it? The rise of the Neocon? How can those who are unswervingly sure of our supremacy–the modern-day manifest-destiny crowd–discard the very things that have made the USA “different” from our adversaries?
thatmtnman,
Normally I’m the guy who counsels moderation, but all of Tom’s comments have shown him to be irredeemable.
Mr. Bron98,
Thank you! I was wondering if there might be something else somewhere else.
cheers!
hey Mike (and Tom),
I just read your response to Tom. I agree with your feelings Mike on this point, and without reservation.
However, and with the greatest of respect, I do think your comments were a bit harsh. I do understand the emotion though. I really do.
I think we all should allow for the possibility that there are people out there who are, ummm…confused, or misinformed, or mislead, or brainwashed or anything but necessarily evil ‘wanna be’ torturers. Right wing media like Bill O’Reilly is promoting torture every day. I’m not suggesting that you are wrong about Tom, he may in fact be like that, but perhaps we might want to give him a chance to deny it. We could ask (if we haven’t already), ‘do you support torture, and what if any limits would you place on coheresion?’ kind of question. I agree the ‘why’ is beside the point.
Now having said that, I think Tom, (cause I know you hang on to my every word here, LOL!) that you should understand that there are few crimes in the same category as torture. Few crimes earn the moniker ‘crime against humanity’. I do believe there is even a global kind of standing warrant for those accused of the act (I stand to be corrected on this point). The global nature of tortures condemnation is partially because America spoke on the issue and wanted it that way.
Now all of that may or may not move anyone to a different place, but I do think that a person who aligns themselves with ‘crimes against humanity’, really should take pause to consider what it is they are associating themselves with. At least speaking for myself, that is what I would do. Not that that matters one whit.
Looking forward to this next round. Seat belts fastened. Omg…
cheers!
thatmtnman:
there is an entire “other” Turley blog. scroll up and hit blog next to bio. Get out of the cave and come into the light.
“Thanks! Only proves my theory about attempts at demeaning anyone who has issues which, you and others “prominent” on
this blog, use to respond to subjects that could have “wrong” answers to a liberal.”
Tom,
People who support torture in any shape, manner or fashion don’t deserve any respect whatsoever. Torture is a horrendous crime and people who really love this country and what it stands for can’t abide it. The people like you and enhanced who favor torture, or wrongly believe it is effective, have no knowledge of history, or of the values that make America great. You are traitors to this country, just as is the Administration that you so slavishly supported and as such I have nothing but contempt for you. I think that makes my position clear. There is no rational argument in favor of torture just as there is none for cold-blooded murder, so discussing it with someone with as sadistic mind as yours and enhanced is a waste of time. By the way this is not a liberal/conservative argument because there are just as many great conservatives who feel as I do.
The real argument is between decent human beings and monsters
who lack any sense of empathy.
As to what is a Dominatrix, I assume you can google, look it up. Hint, having one would be the answer to your deepest sexual longings.
Professor Turley, be careful what you ask for. A special prosecutor (as a guest said on “Countdown” last week) on torture crimes would be a sure way for the Obama Administration to essentially cover up the investigation; similar to the Libby case. We would be better off with a full-blown Congressional investigation.
actually Mike, I just had that experiance with the system trying to make the comment below. It said ‘it looks like you have already said that’. This must be a vast left wing conspiracy 😉
“ahhh Tom, my clever right winger friend, I know nothing. I see nothing, I hear nothing. Perhaps one of us should look it up on the internet and report back? 😉
You guys are wayyyy too much fun! There must be something wrong with me…LOL!!!”
cheers!
ahhh Tom, my clever right winger friend, I know nothing. I see nothing, I hear nothing. Perhaps one of us should look it up on the internet and report back? 😉
You guys are wayyyy too much fun! There must be something wrong with me…LOL!!!
cheers!
That..
Enjoy!
By the way, what’s a “dominatrix”? Can’t even find this one in my dictionary. I wonder if it’s French? I guess Mike may have to give me a definition, if he’d be so kind. If he does, then maybe I can use it in like manner, somewhere else. Of course, you’d think he wouldn’t EVEN bother to read my rambling(s), given his responses. You might even think it beneath someone of his stature.
Tom
man o man,
Between the ‘pinko liberal’ (hey what ever happened to ‘pinko commie’, anyway?? LOL!) reference, and the Dominatrix references, this blog has been way more entertaining than I could have ever imagined!!! 🙂
cheers!