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

Dear Jonathan,
As I thought about your site, and what little I know of you, I think there would be several options and or strategies for you to consider. Since we haven’t had an opportunity to discuss what your needs are, and how you want to develop this internet presence I would be merely guessing at this point. Having said that, allow me to put a few thoughts down for you. At some point we would be wanting to be having our discussions less in the open.
You have an enthusiastic group of followers. One approach is that you might want to ask them what kinds of features they would like to see. As you have most likely read, there was already one request. Should incorporating your community’s feedback be an avenue you wish to explore, there are a couple of ways to do that. We could come up with some ideas acceptable to you, then put it to your community and implement what results come out of that process. Or we could ask the community for a list of things that are important to them.
Secondly, I notice that you appear regularly on TV. You might want to consider organizing the site by medium. So for example, you might want to have a section for ‘Latest television appearances’. Perhaps even you might want to divide that section further into say, Rachel Maddow’s show, and others. There are some convenient cross branding opportunities in those kinds of scenarios. Alternatively, you might organize your site around your latest written work, or a ‘topic of the day’ or in any number of ways reflecting your diverse work-be that TV appearances, or a column, or academic or all three.
You definitely should archive posts in some fashion, as just getting to the latest post can take quiet some time, especially if a user is accessing your site from a mobile phone. Given the enthusiastic debates you might also consider some sort of ‘Socratic corner’, where you put out a topic and your community interacts. There are also some standard things you would want to include, such as an ‘About’ page, which I note you already have. But to that you could add a section for your published works, perhaps upcoming appearances and so on.
The separation of your site into various sections, how ever you might do it, would in and of itself create a navigation structure and would help organize things. It really is up to you. Ultimately, we can create a mock up, refine it to your liking, and do an update.
I hope this helps or at the very least gives you some food for thought. Finally, like everyone else allow me to thank you for that great voice of reason.
cheers!
thatmtnman:
Thanks so much for those thoughts. I have created thread today to talk about possible changes with the regulars to see what ideas might be offered. It is an effort to poll the pack.
Jonathan
James Boyle:
21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
James 2: 21-24
So which is it? Are we justified by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9; Gal. 2:16; Rom. 4:2) or through our works? Just another direct contradiction in the inerrant word of the creator of the universe. I await James Boyle’s interpretation!
Does not say “faith alone.”
Vince:
“You can see why we had to cease engaging that guy, since it can only provoke him.”
***********
It’s just fun to argue with an ideologue when you know his holy books better than he does. For example, most educated folks know that Muslims have the deluded belief that Mohammed ascended into heaven on a white, winged, horse-like animal, thus no grave. Sort of like, well Jesus’ ascension which he accomplished sans the horse.
Saved through faith.
Does not say “faith alone.”
Ephesians 2:8-9. Faith is mentioned.
God hates sin. That is why.
Mespo, You can see why we had to cease engaging that guy, since it can only provoke him. He says that the exact words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the Constitution. I have since read that, although a lot of people think that justification is by “faith alone,” it turns out that they cannot find those “exact words” in the Bible, and have to fall back on interpretations and inferences from the actual writings. Tough luck.
In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was god. I have the Bible. Mohammed was a thief. He also was the leader of a sect who worshipped the moon called Allah. Now you know why there is a 1/2 crescent moon on top of mosques. By the way Mohammed is still in the grave but Jesus is alive.
James E. Boyle:
“Ever hear of Noah’s ark. All the children died not on the ark”
******************
I am more interested to know why a loving, all-powerful, omniscient Being saw fit to kill every man, woman and child on earth save only Noah’s clan and a few animals to prove a point.
“The government doing it for me and helping people who refuse to work is not what God intended. ”
************
Tell me James, what else does God intend? I haven’t spoken to him nor has anyone I know claimed to have done so either. Tell us with the full confidence of your conviction exactly what the creator of the universe told you about his intent, and then explain to me why, of all the life forms in the cosmos, he picked you? Then we can get into why he told Mohammed something different.
MESPO
Ever hear of Noah’s ark. All the children died not on the ark. They had no control. Also, people who have not reached the age of accountability go to heaven. People who died before Christ were under the law, not grace.
MESPO,
I am asked to help the people in need. The government doing it for me and helping people who refuse to work is not what God intended. We pay tithe to our church so there will be meat in God’s house. In other words, the church should be helping the poor, not the government.
James E. Boyle:
“So, again, if she didn’t put her trust in Christ, then she did not make heaven otherwise Christ would be a liar for saying that we must be born again and that he is the only way to the father.”
************
Wonder what happened to all those pious Jews who died before Jesus’ birth? How about the children who die at birth now, or the ones who grow up Muslim or Buddhist? All going to hell for things they had no control over? I love the confidence of your position in the face of all the proof that points to its nonsense. Let’s call it faith, or more accurately believing in things for which there are no good reasons to do so.
James E. Boyle:
“Also, Christ didn’t ever say we are to live off the government.”
************
Wow Jim you really do have trouble with this Book don’t you. Try reading it sometime instead of just saying what you were told it says. Now conclusively proven that the Scriptures do call for government to do good unto others you morph your ignorance to say that Scriptures do not say that government should financially support those in need. Well Jesus said that all of us should support the poor, and since we are the government in this Country unless you theocrats get your way, don’t we have a Biblical charge to support the poor? Let me know if you need the multitude (about 300 I am told) of citations in the Good Book requiring us to support the poor. Here’s an appetizer:
” If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.” Deut. 15:7.
Vince,
I did not trash Mother Teresa. I simply stated that her works can’t get her to heaven because one’s works would bring all glory to one’s self. We work because of our faith in Christ. Mother Teresa was quoted as not having or at least questioning her faith. So, again, if she didn’t put her trust in Christ, then she did not make heaven otherwise Christ would be a liar for saying that we must be born again and that he is the only way to the father. Remember Paul scolded the Jews for being tied to the law because we are saved through grace.
God wants us to live well. I don’t think she cares if we “live off the government” or we don’t “live off the government”.
SPY
Subjecting yourself to government authority is not the same as government being the source for one’s finances. If government requires me to pay taxes, I pay taxes. That however doesn’t mean that God expects for people to live off the government. Adam was commanded to be fruitful and multiply. He wasn’t told that government would take care of him. Also, Christ didn’t ever say we are to live off the government.
thatmtnman:
If JT takes you up on your kind offer, put me down for a preview box, spell checker, archive by date function, and word processor function so I can either bold face or italicize the fonts.