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
Where did I say it ends in 20 years? Nowhere. Do not falsify my words, because they are posted for all to read. I said it preserved importation for 20 years, and it did.
Where does the 6th Amendment say that women have the right to Counsel, if the word “his” in “for his defense” does not included women as well as men? Answer, the word his does include women.
President Bush, the former Governor of Texas, ran the national debt from 4 trillion to 10 trillion during his term from 2001 to 2009. And he had a Republican Congress until 2007.
Yes the 6th amendment mentions him. However, it is an amendment that was introduced by the congress and ratified by the states. It was not written by the founders as the Articles were.
No importation of slaves could be addressed before 20 years. It does not say it ends in 20 years. Read it again. No the Bill of rights did apply to freed slaves. Whether it was properly enforced is another question.
The Bill does use pronouns. Can’t you read? The Sixth Amendment guarantees Assistance of Counsel for HIS defense, for just one example.
Vince,
According to your own words (read above) then slaves could vote and hold national office because they were referred to as “persons.” Remember Article 1 sec. 9 clearly says this and they are the exact words not the founders’ beliefs.
So what? The section only preserved importation for 20 years. That is all it said. You are drawing implications and reading words into it. When you can’t respond to an argument, you change the subject. Your twisted interpretation would have required an amendment to make the bill of rights apply to freed slaves. That reading is absurd.
Where are women excluded?
Nowhere.
The Bill of rights do not use pronouns, they use “people’ and “persons” so Vince’s assertion to the Bill of rights not inlcuding women using my viewpoint is ludicrous.
Vince,
According to your own words (read above) then slaves could vote and hold national office because they were referred to as “persons.” Remember Article 1 sec. 9 clearly says this and they are the exact words not the founders’ beliefs.
Boyle, to repeat once again, there does not need to be an amendment, because the Constitution already permits women to hold office. No one but you and a few cranks believe that an Amendment is necessary.
You still have not pointed to a single word that bars women from office. If you argue that the use of pronouns serves to exclude women, then you have to exclude all women from many of the protections of the Bill of Rights, and that is an absurd position that has never prevailed. In the entire history of the Constitution, women have NEVER been denied the protections of the Bill of Rights, even those accorded to “him.”
As for holding office, I have told you that a woman served in the House of Representatives before the 20th Amendment was ratified, and that was completely constitutional. You are completely wrong, so get over it.
But if you really believe you are right, do something about it. Write to Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison ands tell her to introduced a constitutional amendment granting women the right to serve in the Senate.
[Insert graphic image of horse laughing].
PS, I was talking about Bush as President.
By the way, the governor can only spend money the legislature permits. Also, it is the Lt. Governor in Texas who has most all of the power but I am sure you didn’t know that!
Vince,
Again you didn’t look at your own words so let me put them here again:
“Now, what the founders thought to themselves or assumed is not binding on us. We are only bound by what they put in the words of the Constitution. Some of their writings are helpful in interpretation. But the Constitution prevails.”
As I said before you are adhereing to the strict constructionist view with those words. Try this on the for size.
When John wrote the book of Revelation he never uses the words nuclear bomb yet we know that is probably what is being referred to. Why? Two thousand years ago they didn’t know the word nuclear. Just like the founders never envisioned having women the right to vote or hold a national political office. (Key word national) This is why we need amendments. I have at no time said women should not be allowed into office, I am only saying that there needs to be an amendment.
Tom, I agree with you on the question of fairness. Having represented creditors in bankruptcy proceedings a number of times over the years, I have encountered situations in which a debtor, whether an individual or business entity, has taken advantage of creditors. But there are procedures in the bankruptcy code to prevent abuse. For example, debtors who run up bills right before they file bankruptcy can still be stuck with having to pay those bills. Company insiders who take monies from the business before filing bankruptcy can be forced to repay those monies to the bankruptcy trustee for the benefit of creditors. That abuses still occur does not mean that the system is inherently unfair. It is simply a reflection of the fact that decisions are made by human beings.
With respect to bailouts of the banking and auto industries, there is no doubt that greed, irresponsibility and stupidity each played a large role in the crisis, and I respect the arguments of those who believe that any business should be permitted to fail. However, I also understand the argument that some businesses are so large that their failure will cause harm to thousands of innocent individuals and small businesses. I don’t know if the government’s efforts will succeed. You will recall some years ago that Lee Iacocca came to Congress for a bailout of Chrysler Corporation. Congress responded and Iacocca engineered a very successful recovery for that company. Whether that success can be repeated for GM and Chrysler is anybody’s guess. I have to have a certain amount of confidence that people who are a lot more knowledgable than I have thought this through and have workable plans. We will see.
It probably should be noted that the former Governor of Texas spent so many tax dollars that did not exist that the national debt increased from four trillion to ten trillion from 2001 to 2009.
Moderators, this “bio” thread is really full, nearly 1000 entries, and hard to access.
Can you close it off and start at new thread for Son of Bio, bio redux, “bios,” “bioses,” or the Revenge of the Bio?
Boyle, whenever the constitution uses the words he or his, the words include women as well as men. A woman as well as man has the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Those words are binding.
Maybe this will clarify it. The word his’n includes her’n, and the word hisseff includes herseff. Get it now?
I have not said anything so far about church and state, so I don’t know why you are asking me. But since you asked, you are wrong again. “Separation of church and state,” like the phrase “wall of separation between church and state,” does not appear in the constitution, and I never said it did. I never said that. I am sure you and your friends have been saying this to each other for years, so often that it is an ingrained belief.
The Constitution does ban a “law respecting an establishment of religion,” as well as a law “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Those are the words that are binding. Please read them over. The Constitution does not mention separation of powers, checks and balances, or federalism but everyone uses those terms accurately to describe the structure of our government.
It does not say, as you claim, merely that the government cannot establish a state controlled religion, although it does prohibit that and more. I think the constitution is violated if the government writes a prayer and requires student to recite it in a class which all children are legally required to attend. That establishes a religion, and bars the students’ free exercise. You probably disagree, and support school prayer. But don’t twist the truth. The same clause prohibits students from being required to pray to Allah.
So give this separation argument a rest.
Tom,
The problem we have either through a stimulus or bankruptcy is government should have never been in the business of giving to people money. They are to “promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense” which they have dropped the ball on each. If we really truly want to survive as a nation we must go back the what made us great. People helping people not government doing it. We are to love our neighbor as ourself. Because of all this lucrative spending of tax dollars that don’t exist, within 2-3 years we will no longer recognize this great country. All one has to do is study Roman History to see the road we are currently on. History has always repeated itself and is doing it once again. One easy example: Only people who can afford a house deserve one. If you need government assistance then you don’t deserve one.
To Mike A. RE: Tom Fitchue, since….
I doubt if I have a good argument in response to your well written explanation on bankrupcy policy. I certainly don’t understand the workings of this procedure (obviously). I guess what bothers me is more on a fairness level. I see measures being taken to help individuals salvage the possible loss of a home. This loss may come about from differing circumstances. What bothers me is that people who DIDN’T get caught up in the frenzy of “over-buying” a home they could never afford (or people re-financing their home to attain money to spend on things they might well had never been able to afford), and are struggling to meet their expenses, are NOT likely to find relief
in the workings of the “stimulus” OR the courts, which they may well stay out of. If the bankrupcy courts would recognize the cases that are based on greed, and refuse to reward it with lowering payments to allow un-deserving people to stay in homes they’ll almost certainly loose anyhow, that would be different. I just see this as unfair to those that have practiced frugality and a willingness to “stay within their means”. You know, the “old American way”.
Where do we “draw the line” of who to help, when there are old, fixed income home owners or single parents, that are unable to live a decent life because of loss of savings, pensions, of escalating health costs, food costs, utility and gasoline costs? Who’ll get their payments lowered?
An old fart from another age.
Tom Fitchue
I am sure that the NEW “American way” considers this passe.
Vince,
Here are your words:
Now, what the founders thought to themselves or assumed is not binding on us. We are only bound by what they put in the words of the Constitution. Some of their writings are helpful in interpretation. But the Constitution prevails.
You don’t believe in separation of church and state!
PS: The constitution says “he” and “him” not her and she.
“We are only bound by what they put in the words of the Constitution.”
Mike,
As for Texas ,we are not bankrupt. Again, I would rather have problems on a floating ship than be on a sinking ship.
Vince,
There is no mention in the constitution of separation of church and state. Though I disagree with the court’s interpretation, I must accept their assertion. I guess you don’t because you are a strict constructionist only believing word for word. What the founders may have thought is irrelevant with you.
Dose any one else believe that Chaney Is staring A done hill slide I mean On one hand he will swear That They never used fear in the run up to the war with Iraq then he turned around just the other day and made a statement that went something like this I do not this I could not say this is an exact quote But close . What would you you say or feel about 19 terrorists running around loose in your city not with plane tickets But nukes , And Today Or was it yesterday he said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. His contradictions just keep coming
I Bet at this rate he will be in the hospital because He has a total break down from the pressure of coming to grips with his own culpability On the misinformation that went out to the public to the run up to the war and .I just heard that He has now back off his statement that the water boarding got us good intelligence and now states that the entire program got good actionable intelligence. I have One question Which Is it the first thing he says Or the second thing That come out of his mouth.That Is the truth . Frankley He is proving to me That nothing he says can be equated to the truth.