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
Vince Treacy,
I also appreciate your tenacity; however, when Mr. J. E. Boyles’ principal scholarship is the B-i-b-l-e (Yes! that’s the book for he), then you are in a one-sided debate. I do enjoy your posits and I will read on, to the extent that you have the patience (of Job, for J.E.B’s perusal)
However, be mindful of the potential reactive gravitational force of that Sisyphean boulder…
Boyle:
I have pointed out that the Constitution permitted the states to continue the practice of slavery, as recognized in three specific clauses. Many founders opposed slavery, but conceded these terms to secure the Union. They hoped the states would abolish it in the future.
You make the illogical leap from slavery to women holding office.
Show a single word, cite even one court case, name a single constitutional scholar, find a single statement by a framer, supporting your position that women are barred from federal office.
You have showed nothing.
There is nothing in the Constitution that expressly or implicitly bars women from national office.
And I AM getting away with this, because you have not put up a single relevant argument.
Vince,
You said “The words of the framers of the Constitution, in many instances, came from their ideals and aspirations for themselves”
That means their practices and their prejudices. Are you saying that slavery wasn’t a prejudice or a practice. I am not going to let you get away with that!!!
BIL, uphill all the way! [insert graphic smile]
Boyle said “Their words came from their practices and prejudices!!!”
No, you are wrong on that, and I am not going to let you get away with it.
The words of the framers of the Constitution, in many instances, came from their ideals and aspirations for themselves and their country. Aware of the limitations and prejudices of their day, they set forth words that were often ideal and unrealistic at the present time, but reflected hopes for the future.
I will repeat. The Constitution is a legal document and we are bound by its legal terms, not by your unsupported assumptions about what they might have meant. Again, read the document and show a single word, other than an optional or ambiguous inference from a pronoun, that bars women from office. Name a single constitutional scholar. Find a single statement by a framer that women could NOT hold office. You have not come up with anything yet.
Vince,
You said “So the drafters never voted for a woman. So what? Their practices and prejudices are not what are binding on us. It is the words they drafted that are binding.”
Their words came from their practices and prejudices!!!
Awww, Mike! Come on! The work of Sisyphus may be thankless but it can be very entertaining.
Mike,
It is not about winning or losing. I believe if people sit down and have a clear informed discussion we can realize that differences of opinion is what makes America great. To be honest with you, my biggest main line issue has and will always be taxes. As stated earlier, God only asks that all give 10% and yet our government has different rates for different people and still can’t function with what they receive. I will never understand our current government philosophy. Think about it, the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection but how is our tax code equal? See the hypocricy.
Mr. Boyle, I must say that I have been following your exchanges with Mike S. and Vince Treacy with some amusement. From what I can tell, you have a quasi-originalist theory of constitutional interpretation which you have somehow managed to combine with an 18th century Calvinist theology of justification, early Congregationalist views of church-state relations and adherence to biblical inerrancy (preferably the King James Version). The product is a view of law and society that is immutable and consequently recognizes only concession rather than debate. Under the circumstances, I will save you the effort and will concede to whatever points you may wish to make.
First I never have stated my opinion as fact. I am simply making valid points about our founders which you are as well.
MIKE
You either are lacking in knowledge or are just plain dumb. I am not saying the facts about Texas are wrong. I agree with you. But would you rather have those facts and be debt free or have good facts and be bankrupt?
The Bible says if you don’t work you don’t eat. The government rewards those who don’t work. You can’t disagree with this. Christ never advocated government to help the people. He advocated people to help people. Greed is wrong!! But there is nothing wrong with investing. Remember the parable where 3 men were given talents and Christ scolded the one who buried his in the sand and rewarded those who invested.
You just stated you are a “Godless Liberal” I would think you would need to worry about the judgement. Paul clearly taught salvation is based on faith not works because works would give us the glory. So get of your high.
Remember Biden th Godless Liberal’s hero. He said it is our patriotic duty to pay taxes. Unfortunately he forgot to mention the 40-50% of Americans who pay not income taxes at all. At least God requires everybody to give 10% and doesn’t discriminate against anybody.
James E. Boyle
That is not evidence. It is an inference based on an assumption. No judges in the history of the United States have ever barred women from holding constitutional office, because such a holding would violate their oath to uphold the Constitution. The people of the several states ratified the language of the Constitution, not the assumed beliefs of its drafters.
So the drafters never voted for a woman. So what? Their practices and prejudices are not what are binding on us. It is the words they drafted that are binding. You better be careful when signing a legal document, because you are bound by the words you sign, not by your beliefs or intentions or assumptions.
In short, nothing, repeat nothing, bars women from federal office. It is constitutional for women to hold office, including the Presidency. That is what the founders wrote, and they and all later judges were right and you are wrong.
Still waiting for the name of that scholar.
“Mike,
As for Texas ,we are not bankrupt. Again, I would rather have problems on a floating ship than be on a sinking ship.”
Mr. Boyle,
Again, as seems to be your habit, you pick and choose only what you want to respond to and ignore those points that don’t agree with your pre-conceptions and refute your logic. This is not honest discussion and/or debate. I could show you why, but it would be to no avail. You are most probably one of those faux Christian conservatives, that takes delight in what you think is baiting us Godless Liberals. The trouble is that you don’t get the fact that all you are doing is making yourself seem ridiculous and really wasting all of our time.
You wrap yourself in God and yet you espouse teachings that would have horrified Jesus, according to his teachings in the Gospels. You quote the Pentateuch when it advances your own prejudices, but ignore anything that runs counter to your personal philosophy of greed and lack of sympathy for those less fortunate than you.
You are not a true conservative, you are a faux conservative and a NeoCon. True conservatives work to try to preserve our Nation and its institutions. You on the other hand support an illegal war and the theft of wealth from the majority of Americans. GW Bush put the US one trillion dollars in debt, along with your Republican Congress, in his initial tax measure which gave pennies to the middle and lower economic classes, while giving million$ to the wealthiest elite and to corporations that don’t pay their fair share of taxes. To you no doubt, this was a good thing because it is the richest Americans who you identify with. Now you phony conservatives bemoan Bush’s spending, which for six years your Republican Congress abetted.
As GW Bush said:”Some call you the haves and have mores….I
call you my base.” somehow in your compartmentalized mind you equate Jesus teachings and the Pentateuch’s teachings with this greed. You are in fact a worshiper of Mammon, rather than a God-fearing man. Sadly for you, given your ability to rationalize, you are unaware of the difference between Mammon and Jesus. I pity you when it comes time to meet your maker, which I hope for you is long in coming, because I suspect you will be quite surprised at your judgment.
I will not respond to you further, not because I can’t beat you in debate, but because you debate and discuss without integrity and with dishonesty. I’ve heard the phrase that
“Texans mean what they say and say what they mean,” in your case this is apparently not true.
The evidence is simple. In the founders lifetime did they nominate or vote for any female president? If not, then one’s actions can show what they believe. Yes, I make assumptions. Those assumptions however are based on the times in which the founders lived and their actions. This along with the exact words of the constitution is what makes a good supreme court judge. They are to interpret the meaning thereof based on study of the intent of our founders in conjunction with the exact words as written in the constitution. Anything short of that would be an injstice to our current society.
“I do not believe the founders thought the same about fugitives as they did the presidency. I am sure Vince does. I am certain except for a few cooks that most constitutional scholars would believe as I do on this point.”
I know you do not “believe” it, but is there any evidence? If so, show us.
Name one constitutional scholar who agrees with you. I would like to read his or her views.
I do not have to give you a yes or no answer to anything. No one, including you, knows what was in the minds of the founders. If you find any of their writings or testimony on this subject, feel free to share it. You have made a lot of assumptions about them without any evidence.
I do know from the evidence that the terms Constitution that the founders drafted did not exclude women from national office.
If you can find any language in it that does exclude them, let us know.
I do not believe the founders thought the same about fugitives as they did the presidency. I am sure Vince does. I am certain except for a few cooks that most constitutional scholars would believe as I do on this point.
O.K. Vince,
One question with a yes or no.
Did the founders believe a woman should be president? yes or no?
“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.”
That argument is pathetic.
Everyone, look at Art IV, sec 2., cl. 2, on extradition, in the Constitution itself, not the Bill of Rights. A fugitive can be delivered to the State “from which HE fled.” So in your interpretation, women fugitives were immune from extradition.
That is ridiculous. Women could be extradited, despite the pronoun “he.” Women could hold office.
Please post a copy of your letter to Sen. Hutchison.
In Bush’s defense, he had to deal with 911. I still however don’t agree with his spending.
I don’t think Bush was a conservative. But wait and see what the debt will be after Obama. He has already spent more in his first 4 months than Bush did in the last 4 years. Also, Bush had democratically controlled congress from 2007-2008.
You can’t spend your way out of debt.