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
Very interesting. Sorry you did not write it yourself. Readers can find it at all http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon218.htm where it was originally written by By Jon Christian Ryter, (a pseudonym for someone at the Washington Times, website http://www.jonchristianryter.com ) February 16, 2008,NewsWithViews.com. Most of us here at the Turley site try to attribute our sources.
“Ryder” is not very convincing. He says women may be members of Congress but not President, because in “Only one time, in one sentence, in Article I are the members of the House and/or Senate collectively referred to in male gender, and that is in Section 6, paragraph 2.” Really? Only one time? He does not seem to notice another instance, in the very language he quotes, where both a Senator and a representative must be an inhabitant of that State in which “he” shall be chosen.”
He says that in Section 6, paragraph 2, “the usage is basically generic since there is no individual gender specific reference made for an individual person.”
As I have made abundantly clear above, the Constitution makes no sense at all unless the pronoun “he” and “she” are treated consistently throughout the original document and its amendments, and that those pronouns are not gender specific, but refer to men and women alike.
Great reasoning for a “male” only president:
In Article II, Section 1, the Constitution appears to establish only three ironclad qualifications for president. The president must (1) be at least 35 years old, (2) have lived in the United States at least 14 years, and (3) be a natural-born citizen. Yet, Article II, Section 1 declares that the President will be a man 16 times. Further, as noted by J.A. Corry, principal of Queen’s University in London, and Henry J. Abraham, Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, in their political science text book, Elements of Democratic Government (©1964; Oxford University Press) that in addition to the “written” qualifications for the office, there are also several “unwritten” qualifications and customary requirements that precedent has added to the qualifications for the office of President of the United States. Corry and Abraham insist these prerequisites must be viewed in the light of the entire composite. Being male is necessarily one of them.
Moreover, the Founding Fathers specifically wrote into the Constitution a male-gendered office called President. Article II, Section 1 begins: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected as follows…” You really do not have to read further to realize the role of President of the United States is gender-specific. Note the qualifications for the office of Congressman found in Article I, Section 1:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States…No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the age of 25 years, and been 7 years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen…” There is no gender specification in the description of a Congressman. Nor is there any in the qualifications for Senator found in Article I, Section 2: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State chosen by the legislature thereof…No person shall be a Senator who shall have attained the age of 30 years, and been 9 years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.” Only one time, in one sentence, in Article I are the members of the House and/or Senate collectively referred to in male gender, and that is in Section 6, paragraph 2. In that instance, the usage is basically generic since there is no individual gender specific reference made for an individual person. In this single instance, the Constitution is clarifying that Congressmen and Senators may not serve a dual role in the Executive Branch of government.
Four times in Article I, Section 7 the President is referred to specifically as a man. Again, this was not an accident. The President is referred to, by gender, a total of 20 times in the Constitution. Most constitutional scholars agree that the Founding Fathers intended to establish a male gender national leader. In doing so, they explicitly barred women from ever becoming the President of the United States without first enacting a constitutional amendment that would allow them to accept the office if elected (since there appears to be nothing that bars them from seeking the office—only serving it if elected)
The first amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” so having the 10 commandements posted is not a violation of any right as long as the government doesn’t pass a law requiring they be posted. Unfortunately, many on the left don’t interpret it this way but this is exactly what it says. When the left take the position they are illegal they have no constitutional grounds when no congress makes no law.
Vince,
What I have never figured out is how a valedictorian using the name “Jesus” in a speech is somehow unacceptable to many and they claim it has to do with separation of church and state. The Valedictorian is a private citizen giving a speech based on perosnal achievement. The government is not establishing anything in that speech. What are your thoughts?
Boyle, I reread your posts. You started out by saying “There is no mention in the constitution of separation of church and state.”
Well, you now seem to finally recognize that statement was false. You now say you are making the point that the “exact words” of separation of church and state are not written.” Good. That is progress. There is mention of separation because that concept and doctrine is in the First Amendment. Fine.
VINCE,
Are you saying one’s actions can’t tell us about what they may be thinking? I don’t have to live in the 1700s to understand people thought in the 1700s. It is no different than my kids being in college and knowing what I would do if I were there with them. You keep contradicting yourself because on one hand you say only follow the words of the constitution but then use the free exercise thereof to come up with the words separation of church and state. I am only saying that separation of church and state is interpreted as what the founders meant so interpretation plays a role and you just need to accept that.
Thanks, Boyle. Sorry about that.
BIL, Been watching SF flicks since I first saw Destination Moon and The Day the Earth Stood Still on the big screen at Saturday matinees in 1950. This was one of the most exhilarating. The action never stops. It is a great example of the New Space Opera Renaissance that is rolling through the science fiction universe these days.
The movie has great production values and hit all the right notes. The green woman from the TV series popped up in the first reel. Everybody was back in their 1960s Trek uniforms. “I’m a doctor, not a physicist!” Scotty kinaa git anae mae powae frim the engins. Ahead warp factor five, Mr. Sulu!
Vince you keep saying the 20th amendment when it is the 19th amendment.
Boyle: Why did we not give women the right to vote before former male slaves (15th)? The reason was it was a state issue as you say.
Therefore, the national government wasn’t ready to make that bold step for women’s suffrage. That is probably due in part that the founders were not either.
“Boyle said : Why did we not give women the right to vote before former male slaves (15th)?”
If you cant figure this out for yourself, try reading a history book. You can wonder all you want about the 15th and 20th Amendments, but it does not change a single fact. The Constitution NEVER barred women from the Presidency or any other federal office, and does NOT have to be amended, as you so falsely charge. You still have not found a single word in the Constitution or the writings of the founders to support your charges. You just wonder.
What is your problem? Suffrage and office holding are distinct issues. You have been told, TWICE, that women held office before the 20th amendment guaranteed their vote. So we will tell you for a THIRD time. There is NOTHING in the Constitution or the writings of the founders barring women from national office.
You really are amazing. Most scholars have to rely on what the founders did and wrote, but not you. You can read their minds, even the minds of people who have been dead for 200 years. While you are at it, find out the truth about Tom Jefferson and Sally. In the meantime, almost everyone but you can see that the founders neither DID nor WROTE anything to prohibit women from holding office under the Constitution, whatever their secret innermost thoughts may have been.
I agree Vince, but again I am making the point that the exact words of separation of church and state are not written but are interpreted so founder’s interpretation does matter which you seem to think it doesn’t. All of your comments are posted to prove this claim.
Boyle: “As I stated separation of church of state is not written in the Constitution but has been interpreted as a founder belief so interpretation does matter.
You are still wrong, no matter how many times you repeat this canard to yourself and your friends. The doctrine of separation of church and state IS written into the Constitution in the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment. Free exercise means that you are entitled to your own beliefs, but the establishment clause stops you from having the government cram them down other peoples’ throats.
Why don’t you tell your friends that the words separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, and states rights are not written in the Constitution? You might not be as popular with them then.
Vince,
Glad you liked Trek. People laughed and applauded that line in the theater I was in. The consensus among the group I went with was that Urban’s was probably the strongest individual performance although all performed admirably.
As the United States of America takes its place among the pantheon of ’empires’ that have ‘entered’ triumphant and left vanquished ‘the Graveyard of Empires’, save but a very few … its citizens will forever be clueless as to the connection.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/opinion/l04afghan.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y
America: Land of the Free … Home of the Brave?
Free to do any unGodly thing they want & Brave enough to ignore the consequences!!
Vince,
Why did we not give women the right to vote before former male slaves (15th)? The reason was it was a state issue as you say.
Therefore, the national government wasn’t ready to make that bold step for women’s suffrage. That is probably due in part that the founders were not either.
As I stated separation of church of state is not written in the Constitution but has been interpreted as a founder belief so interpretation does matter.
Boyle, you say that you “come to that conclusion based on the mere fact that they never allowed women the right to vote.” You just don’t know the constitution. The founders never addressed the right to vote, for women or for men who were not property owners or anyone else. They left it to the states as part of the federal system. They never barred the states from letting women vote. They never barred women from office.
I have already posted words from Article I that eligibility for voting in federal elections was based on eligibility to vote in STATE elections. They did nothing to stop states from granting the vote to women. They left it to the states. They said nothing about whether men or women were eligible to vote. I do not care what you personally think may have been in their hearts, and no constitutional court has ever cared. It is what they wrote that counts.
If they did not want a woman President, and wanted to prevent it, then they should have limited eligibility to men. They did not do so. They left the door open to Montana to let women vote, and Montana elected a woman to the House. It is simply one of the issues that they did not address in a document establishing a limited federal government. They did not rule one way or the other.
So just get over it. Your position has no support at all. There is absolutely no bar to women President in the Constitution. You think you know what was in their “hearts,” but you have no way of knowing that, and present no evidence. All you can do is draw an unsupported inference.
Maybe they never wanted a woman President, but, then again, maybe they thought the idea was so impossible that there was no need to ban it. Well, they were wrong about that. If they had wanted all male Presidents, they should have put it in writing, just as they did when they banned naturalized citizens from the Presidency. But the didn’t, and so women are not barred.
An unwritten understanding by the founders ain’t worth the paper it ain’t written on.
Boy, the new Star Trek movie was great! It is the best ST drama ever in my opinion. It just roars along at warp speed. It is the best SF fun since the first Star Wars opened in the 70s.
Best line: “Spock, are you out of your Vulcan mind?”
Vince,
I have agreed that that there may be no specific reference to not allowing women to hold the presidency by our founders. But you, can’t honestly say that the founders believed in their heart a woman should be president. I come to that conclusion based on the mere fact that they never allowed women the right to vote.
Mike,
My point on tithing is that God can get along with 10% and it is equal for everybody but our government can’t get along with 30, 35 or even 40% in an unequal tax system.
Mr. Boyle, tithing and taxation are different concepts. We can talk about one or the other, but there is no relationship between them that has any relevance to government or tax policy. Plus the 14th Amendment does not guarantee equal protection in the sense that you seem to think.
Thanks, Mike, LEO and BIL, but I need a respite, so I am going to see the new Star Trek. Live long and prosper, and may the force be with you.
Thanks a lot, Buddha! Just practicing law these days is becoming increasingly Sisyphean.