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
Fusionink.
Sorry to be so slow to respond. I like your statement about “trying to fix what he cannot”. My issue is mostly “stimulus” based. I also hold his “promise of transparency” in contempt. The stim was force-fed through Congress, and passed un-read. IT was a “dire emergency”, but wasn’t endorsed by Obama until he got back from a trip, as I recall, to Chicago. I doubt if many of our Congresspeople know what they “passed” (to be interpreted as you see fit). Obama, during his “run” said something like “nothing will be signed until a bill had been posted for five days”, yet there was minimal resistance from either party (although the Pub’s didn’t seem to have much say). And, as I understand it, a large ($300 billion, maybe) won’t be spent for years, or when the Chinese can lend us more money, whichever comes first.
I have further issues with Obama. and have been asked several times by people questioning my reasons for my “ardor”. In NO WAY is race an issue. Hell, I voted for him because I couldn’t abide the other choices. I do feel that some of the “other choices” wouldn’t have lead us to where we are in world credibility.
As for me profitting from Bush’s 8 years, very laughable.
Tom Fitchue
A RWE Democrat
Former Federal LEO and mespo727272,
I say ‘amen brothers’. What the heck is that person on?
cheers!
This is why Professor Turley needs just one, trusted, honest moderator to help him delete such nonsense. First Amendment rights are fine, but JTA’s junk has nothing to do with a bio nor anything else worthwhile.
JTisA:
“…who is brainless peace of meat absolutely dipressed in your life and know nothing but making up LIES and accusing innocent honest people. KARMA is after you and GOD WILL PUNISH you VERY SOON.”
*****************
I find it fascinating that a grown man has nothing better to do than stay up to the wee hours insulting his betters from the safety of his anonymity and still has the moxie to misspell or misuse about 50% of the words in his commentary. Couple that with his insight into the will of the Almighty and you have the perfect neo-con troll condemned to spewing his hate around the trailer park among the other beer guzzling Cretans who are committed to absolutely nothing (their kin included) and hate absolutely everything. Quite a life? Are you franchising?
Turley look in the mirrow you brainless peace of meat with nothing but LIES and dirt in your soul. That dirt will stay there forever for all those damages you have done to innocent honest people. YOU ARE ASSHOLE JERK peace of shit.
your enemy forever.
Jonathan you are SICK retired and ASSHOLE who is brainless peace of meat absolutely dipressed in your life and know nothing but making up LIES and accusing innocent honest people. KARMA is after you and GOD WILL PUNISH you VERY SOON>
Jonathan you are an absolutely ASSHOLE and dirty jerk and you know KARMA is coming to get you in a ass VERY SOON for accusing innocent people like miss O. Grishuk. God was watching you and you WILL be punished for your DIRTY nasty accusation. You are fucking Dipressed ASSHOLE.
hey Jonathan P,
I was rereading your note where in you mentioned the Presidents lack of salute and had a curious question. Would you or someone else on the forum know if as commander in chief a president is supposed to be saluted, in military protocol, does that not mean he is required to, or expected to or given grant to, return the salute? Secondly, and I am really curious about this, is ‘commander in chief’ a military rank? I know its a political rank, and the president is head of the military, but I am curious if it is a ‘rank’, or perhaps the ultimate rank? As well, if someone knows, if a president and a military officer are together, who gets saluted first or does it make a difference?
Thanks for your patience!
cheers!
Eric,
Out of curiosity, what kind of dance lessons were you teaching and to whom, that you would end up in jail? Was this in America or Iran or?
cheers!
Hey Johnathan ,
I hope your doing well.
This is Eric Romero. You wrote a story about me going to jail for teaching dance lessons (contempt of court).
I just wanted to let yo know that since my jail sentence I have been struggleing to find a job. It has been almost 1.5 years since I went to court over this noncompete and I have had so many problems. I can’t teach in the surrounding area because most studios are afraid of the owners of Arthur Murray Dance Studio owners (Todd Knoche and Claudia Marshal) They wont say it but its true….. I currently have applied for foodstamps and welfare and I had to call several churches to donate food to me. I have had to sell personal property and my vehicle to make ends meet because I cant find a job. The last 7 years have been dedicated to dance and really how does that apply to corporate america today? I have been serverly devestated by this lawsuit. I am on the verge of losing my apartment that I have had for a while now. Its been crazy sad….
Its unforntunate what this noncompete has done to me. I dont know what to do? I am waiting til the Decemember 30th deadline to get myself to start teaching again…and get my business up and running again…
Dont know what to do anymore….
Eric
214 9235434
Ronald Hoage,
I am not a lawyer but I have written a couple of e-mail letters to the Department Of Justice (DOJ hereafter) lately myself. The letters I wrote were answered with a semi-form letter email that gave the impression that someone actually read what I wrote. I was surprised by that because I email (and have called) various Legislative and Executive offices and officials and generally receive no reply.
If the DOJ is interested in a case they proceed on their own, they bring the case through their own prosecutors and lawyers, they don’t take a case ‘for’ someone else. They are the governments prosecutors and lawyers and their interest (when it’s working properly) is seeing that Federal laws (not prosecuted by other Federal agencies with jurisdiction) that are violated are prosecuted.
A citizen that has relevant information can be called as a witness but is not the moving party in the case. If you were interested in getting a lawyer to proceed to or through the DOJ then the answer is ‘no’, you don’t need one. If you think you need a lawyer because you might be a witness or there could be some reprisal due to your letter the answer is still ‘no’; we’re like little flies, we aren’t big enough to swat and we probably don’t have anything material to tell them.
Also, the ‘blackmail’ you observe is real it’s also politics as usual but not often played out in public. Of course it’s a form of blackmail but it’s also a political tactic when done a certain way and doesn’t rise to the level of criminal activity. Your instinct is good and your desire to remove this Pelosi distraction from the larger debate on torture is commendable. Whenever I write an Executive office- White House, DOJ, Environmental Protection Agency etc., I always write my Senators or Representatives about the same matter. I’d encourage you to write Pelosi and tell her not to cave in and maybe your own Representatives to tell them to move forward on investigating torture anyway. Here is the link to the House Website; I’m sure you probably have it but I’ll post it just in case because I don’t know if you wrote a paper letter or e-mail:
http://www.house.gov/Welcome.shtml
If I may give you one piece of advice; be careful about posting your real name and address on websites- you don’t want trolls mailing notes or looking you up in a phone book.
I cannot believe I just wrote “there” instead of “their.” Can I blame it on the earthquake about 90 minutes ago? About a 5.0, and about 5 miles from here. It sounded like a car had smashed into the house.
Tom,
My apologies if you thought I was serious in my post about Obama as a communicator.
For people like me, it’s very difficult to understand the rage against Obama, because he is not at all responsible for the predicament we’re in. On another forum recently, I asked someone what Obama had done that was so awful. The response astounded me: This individual’s rage was because Obama had “bowed to the Saudi King” as well as apparently not handled the meeting of the Queen according to protocol and, most remarkably, because he had shaken hands with a military person instead of saluting.
That last example strikes me as a no-win situation for Obama, because he would have been mocked by that same crowd had he saluted (since he “did not serve”).
For me, and others like me, Obama is a refreshing change from George W. Bush. We view him as intelligent, thoughtful, and rational. We like the idea of the USA showing respect to other countries. And we like the idea of a progressive tax which forces the VERY wealthy to pay higher taxes for the programs that we, as a nation, approved in the voting booth by electing Obama.
This leaves me (and again, people like me, as I’m hardly the first one to say this) more than a little confused as to where the overwhelming anti-Obama sentiments are coming from on the right. The obvious answer is racism. It’s the only phenomenon I can think of that would explain such anger against a president who has not had the chance to do much, yet, beyond disappointing people on the left who wanted to see immediate torture investigations, the discontinuation of warrantless wiretaps, the restoration of Habeas Corpus, and the end of military tribunals. Other than “the stim,” Obama has been much farther to the right than his campaign portrayed him to be.
So, is it the Stimulus? If it is, then I guess we will all have to see how that pans out. I agree that spending a bunch of borrowed money in a time of economic distress seems counterintuitive. But, many economists and historians have indicated that this is what’s needed, and that the more intuitive approach of tightening the screws on spending has historically deepened economic downturns. Admittedly, some people like me are giving Obama, his economic advisers, and other like Nobel laureate Paul Krugman the benefit of the doubt. Unless you have some level of economic expertise that the average person doesn’t, I don’t understand why you cannot look back on the Bush years and realize that it’s time for something very, very different.
Finally, I was driving in Los Angeles yesterday and saw some “tea party” people on the corner of Hawthorne Blvd and Sepulveda Blvd. One of them had a sign that said “T E A” (taxed enough already). The chances that these people have suffered a tax increase under Obama is very slim, because few people making $250K+ stand around with signs outside malls. All I can think of when I see people like that, and hear people complaining about Obama’s spending plans, is “where the hell were you for the last 8 years?” Funny how the right has convinced so many people who have just had there taxes cut that Obama is taxing them too much.
Tom, Just to be clear. You do realize that Obama did not create the debacle we are in now? He is simply trying to fix what cannot be fixed. And, one could imagine that he is hesitant to take advise from those who presided over causes of the said debacle. Certainly, you didn’t sit quietly by for the last eight years watching while our country was going underwater? Or, maybe you were benefiting from it so you did not care and felt quite comfortable with it. Is that the case?
Bubba,
Daggone! Another meaningless, undefined message that probably is boring all the other readers to death. Talk about beating an invisible horse (least I think it’s a horse). And, it put me to sleep.
Good night.
Tom Fitchue
Tommy,
Why waste rationality on a self-proclaimed right wing extremist who apparently has no concept of what the Constitution says, much less how to uphold it? Let alone one too stupid to not contradict himself on a single thread in hopes a site full of lawyers won’t notice?
The only difference between you and a troll are 1) they get paid and 2) you are more persistent because your ignorance is organic. People often ask, how did the Nazis get so many Germans to join? By preying upon people like you, Tom. That’s why you just don’t get no respect.
Bubba,
Golly! Your “rational side” didn’t last long. You haven’t been sucking on the Kool-Aid again, have you?
Tom Fitchue
What’s that smell?
Oh, it’s just Tom!
You should really check your Depends more often, fascist apologist. They’re full again.
Of that, I’m sure.
Thata…
I know. I’ve been “P T B” again. I should know better, right?
To quote the words of the immortal George C. Scott (who was quoting someone named Patton, as I recall) “God forgive me, but I DO love it so”.
Tom Fitchue
I do object to being cursed at, and (I think?) falsely accused.
Although of what I’m not too sure.
Bubba,
That’s more like it, actually rational & not expletive loaded, which isn’t polite. I don’t think I’m apologist. I can’t remember anything I written (almost literally), but I don’t know where your opinion comes from. In your earier message, you mentioned “my correctness”. I’ve been accused of a lot of things, but certainly not correctness. I’ve been puzzling over that one since I read it. I am NOT a “Bushie”. He was an embarrassment to our Country. I did not like Gore, Kerry, McCain, Romney, (maybe Ron Paul?, etc. We’ve offered up terrible choices for President(s)since Clinton, who wasn’t a bad Prez, just a sleaze. One wonders if there’ll ever be another Presidental prospect who really cares about our Country? Politics have always been about power & money, in my opinion. Unless there’s a miracle coming from somewhere, it’s probably all moot, anyhow. The likelyhood of our surviving the mess/debacle we’re in seems to be doubtful, at best.
Now, isn’t this better?
Tom Fitchue
You already know how I’m registered