Bio

JONATHAN TURLEY
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

unnamed-1Professor 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.

Turley-600x287In 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).

05282015_6695Among 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.

05282015_6655Professor 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.

694940094001_6113691487001_6113685625001-vsProfessor 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.

download-2Professor 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

1,633 thoughts on “Bio”

  1. That….

    I believe Obama FIRST said he “wanted to look forward”, and there’d be no investigation(s), then, when it became necessary for a “distraction”, that he badly needs, all of a sudden he got “pressured” to release classified info, albeit just a few, and very selective ones. Even Pelosi (who has her own reasons NOT to), along with others in his vaunted admin., advised him not to, but he “yielded to pressure”. Then, when the backlash occured, he decides that, maybe, there wouldn’t be an investigation, after all, because of the “danger” it represented to our troops”. One might wonder why this all happened this way. Some think it was grandstanding to appease the most left side of the Dem’s, who think he’s reneging on his campaign promises to them. What a way to “run/ruin a country!

    Tom Fitchue

  2. fusionink,

    this whole debate about if we will, or will not investigate the allegations is like living in a Castaneda novel. I never, never, ever, ever thought that America would be associated with something like this. Of course I always knew that there was the possibility that there might be bad actors in the future. I was so supremely confident in our sense of American justice that I just ‘knew in my heart’ that we would not allow that to stand. And, pity me, I actually believed Obama when he said that if there were crimes, there would be investigations. I can’t help wonder what Holder is going to do? Is he wholly owned or does he act independently. I known that there is the notion of independence between the two, but in the real world, maybe not. Isn’t that what we learned from the last 8 years?

    I too wonder, if Holder will have any concern for his historical position as the first person from a persecuted minority, to lie down for a persecutor?

  3. Fusionink,
    You’re really worked up over this, aren’t you? How many folks outside the US have you talked with who see us as “disfigured”? None that I’ve talked with.

    The “shame” we have is being the only industralized country where folks go bankrupt because they cannot afford healthcare. That’s the kind of issue I care about (although as a senior,I’m not impacted personally); Not reveling in additional details about how some folks who have spent generations blaming the West for their ineptitude got shoved around a bit. Frankly, we’ve kept them in the cooler too long — we should have hanged the key ones a few years ago and be done with it.

  4. Dear thatmtnman, It is true, the face of America has been permanently scarred by the the Bush Administration and virtually every facet of their policies and activities. It is a disfigurement that will never be hidden. Although, those like Tom and others would rather not get into the absolute evil that any sort of torture of another human being represents. Even now, as we speak of torture techniques which in my mind would seem passive when compared to some methods that are beyond description…And, do you think anyone wants to know what we actually did to the renditioned prisoners who were moved to the “black sites”? God, it would be beyond the pale and the American people would have to hide their nationalism in shame…Now, they claim that it is best for our nation to move forward and not look back while they themselves do in fact look back while trying to re write history within the consciousness of the American people hoping to erase the horrible truth…Their freedom to speak will not be challenged but their attempt to obscure reality shall be.

  5. Dear That…

    Please, get a grip on yourself. There’s too much craziness happening NOW that requires our attention – and action – that this is a distraction that draws our foci away from what’s in-the-now. The torture issues can be addressed later, when we’ve resolved the failings of our way of life.
    Tom Fitchue

  6. OldMike,

    It is sad, isn’t it? I feel, well…I feel ‘defeated’ in some way I can’t put my finger on. And on top of that, I hear today that the president will not be releasing the photos of the alleged torture. So, injustice wins, the former vp wins, our reputation, our future and our moral leadership are gone. gawd, it’s really terrible.

    cheers!

  7. If we do not prosecute any potential Bush/Cheney war crimes then as a nation we are cowards and hypocrites. Worse, we are complicit.

  8. fusionink,
    try telling folks w/o healthcare that the issue isn’t primary.

    I just have this sense the rest of the world is laughing at us: this is what the americans’ call torture?

    well, I’m sure we’ll keep fretting about it and lose the the importance stuff we finally have a chance to fix. No organization is better at doing nothing than the congress, even under the best of circumstances. Just watch – they’ll get sidetracted and the Rs will have the last laugh.

  9. What good is the health of a nation if it’s soul is poisoned…That’s why the torture issue is important to reconcile.

  10. Hi prof,
    Usually like your stuff but am getting so tired by the hoopla over “torture.” You and others are lost in the trees and missing the forest: forget waterboarding as a war crime (KSM didn’t appear any the worse for wear); what about invading a country? Wasn’t that what we were referring to at Nurenburg by the charge of Waging Aggressive War?
    Frankly I’d like to move on before we put at risk the big issues we need to fix – like healthcare!
    PS – I’m a lifelong Dem.
    BF

  11. thatmtnman,

    That is a troll. His job is to cut and paste. Disruption by volume and non-sequitor. Any explanation you get is going to be either copy/pasted talking points or sometimes snark or an attempt to garner sympathy for the Neocons. This particular type of troll is best ignored. Just a hint from your friendly neighborhood Buddha.

  12. FORMER DEM,

    I read your long post, which seems to be excerpts of other blogs or news items. Forgive me, and I am not being sarcastic but I am missing your point of all of those items. Would you please explain?

    cheers!

  13. .
    .
    Al-Marri’s sweetheart deal
    May 5, 2009 Posted by Scott at 7:08 AM
    Al-Marri, the terrorist sent to the United States by al-Qaeda to carry out a second wave of mass-murder attacks, was permitted by the Justice Department to plead guilty to a single count of material support to terrorism, maximum sentence 15 years’ imprisonment with the possibility that al-Marri may simply be given credit for time served and released.

    The Obama administration has already outright released, with no trial, Binyam Mohammed, an al-Qaeda operative who, like al-Marri, was assigned by KSM to carry out mass-murder attacks in the United States after 9/11. Now, al-Marri has been given a plea agreement that grossly undersells the grave seriousness of his war crimes.

    If Holder’s objective was to demonstrate that George W. Bush was wrong to detain al-Marri as an enemy combatant and that the criminal-justice system “works,” this sweetheart deal suggests the opposite.

    Jihadists were not impressed by our strategy of fighting them in the courtroom through the 1990s.

    Wonder what they’re thinking now.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Just heard on the news that after 12 billion dollars in taxpayer money, another 25 billion that financial firms are being forced to write off and after all that the Union being given 55% ownership of Chrysler; the Union just announced they are going to SELL THEIR 55% and put the proceeds into a Union Trust Fund!

    What a con JOB! What a rip off of the American Taxpayer! What a rip off of the creditors that funded Chrysler!

    Unbelievable!
    .
    .
    .
    .
    House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey said he was “very dubious” about the chances of success in the region and wants a “fish or cut bait” assessment in a year’s time that will determine how long the U.S. continues on this path. “It gives the president one year to demonstrate what he can do.” said the Wisconsin Democrat.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22083.html

    NOTHING LIKE TELLING THE ENEMY IN AFGANISTAN THAT DEMOCRATS AREN’T EVEN BEHIND THIS PRESIDENT IN STRIVING FOR VICTORY, EH GARY???!!!!!!

    LIBERALS IN CONGRESS WILL DO ANYTHING TO MAKE US LOSE A WAR IF THEY THINK IT GAINS THEM POLITICALLY NO MATTER HOW MANY LIVES IT COSTS.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    PHANTOM AIR FARCE PICTURES
    By JEREMY OLSHAN
    AP
    May 5, 2009

    The $328,835 snapshots of an Air Force One backup plane buzzing lower Manhattan last week will not be shown to the public, the White House said yesterday.

    “We have no plans to release them,” an aide to President Obama told The Post, refusing to comment further.

    The sole purpose of the secret photo-op, which sent thousands of New Yorkers running for cover, was to take new publicity shots of the presidential jet over the city.

    “The photos . . . are classified — that’s ridiculous,” Councilman Peter Vallone Jr., said.

    New Yorkers said they could not understand how a president who shares intimate snapshots from the White House could justify classifying these.

    “So we’re not gonna see the fruits of this cruel joke?” said Frank Antonelli, 39, one of the Wall Street traders spooked by last week’s flyover.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    The CIA’s war against President Bush was motivated by ass covering, or by political partisanship. But with President Obama, it’s personal.

    Many are furious about Obama’s disclosure of explicit details of the interrogation methods used on some al Qaida bigwigs, and his waffling on whether or not those who employed them will be subject to prosecution.

    Others are incensed by his decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, and to let some of those incarcerated there loose in the United States.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held two hush hush meetings with CIA Director Leon Panetta and Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee last week.

    “Her fear and frustration have apparently given way to panic after word reached her of the CIA’s reaction to the damage she, President Obama and other Democrats have done to the spy agency in the last three months, wrote Jed Babbin, a former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, in Human Events May 1. “Pelosi learned that her actions and those of President Obama have so damaged CIA morale that the agency’s ability to function could be in danger.”

    The upshot of the meetings was an unprecedented letter from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Tex) to Mr. Panetta, making a quasi-apology. Rep. Reyes asked the CIA director to “disseminate it to the CIA workforce as soon as possible.”

    But the CYA nature of the letter, and Mr. Reyes’ pledge of more oversight are unlikely to mollify many at Langley. Other Western intelligence services regard the Obama administration with contempt and rising concern as an officer of the DGSE, France’s military intelligence agency, informed the CIA last week.

    “All of us in our little community are worried — us, our friends in Berlin, London, Tel Aviv,” the DGSE officer said. “It is not like the barbarians at the gates. It is every barbarian horde in the world being told there are no gates.”

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/05/the_cias_fight_with_obama_96333.html

  14. Former Dem:
    You’ve just received an “evaluation” by the resident Head Critiquer & lay-psychologist. And, it didn’t cost you anything! Can’t beat that!
    Tom Fitchue

  15. Former Dem, please get some help before you hurt someone, or yourself. Your hatred is becoming increasingly incoherent and generalized. You might consider laughing at yourself occasionally. After all, you surely don’t believe that you are any less ridiculous than the rest of the earth’s inhabitants, do you?

  16. FORMER DEM,

    Have you noticed that you’re having an argument with yourself?

  17. SILLY ME, I THOUGHT US SUPREME COURT MEMBERS WERE SUPPOSE TO UPHOLD THE US CONSTITUTION, NOT USE THE SUPREME COURT TO PASS LEGISLATION THAT CONGRESS WAS UNABLE TO.

Comments are closed.