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
Sir:
I enjoy your comments on MSNBC. Also on your Blog which I just re-discovered.
I do have one question: In regard to the Republicans not wanting to investigate the CIA abuses/torture, I was trying to remember if the Republicans raised any objections to the Watergate Hearings and how similar the CIA abuses are to Watergate re: Abuse of Power?
Thank you for any reply you would care to make.
Yo prof! Are you going to provide some much-needed commentary and analysis on this Wells Fargo vs Wells Fargo farrago?
young john, Sorry to say that those of wealth, privilege and power do not have to obey the laws that you and I have to. Because they are privileged they feel themselves entitled. Because they are powerful they feel themselves immune. Because they are wealthy they feel themselves superior. So, now go forth with this knowledge and see for yourself if you think this applies..good luck.
Hello Mr. Turley:
Just a note to let you know that I enjoy listening to you when you are on Countdown. As a young voter, I am fairly disgusted with the current course taken concerning the alleged crimes commited by the previous administration. I believe this is the atmosphere that is responsible for a lack of younger voters casting votes. We see this lack of desire to persue these allegations based purely on politics. Had I commited these alleged crimes, I would be persued vigorously. Why do the laws not apply across the board to ALL Americans? Including those in office.
Sincerely,
John Schrader
Dear Prof. Turley,
Do you have a public email? I have a question, actually, John Legend asked it on Twitter, “Any lawyers out there know if MJ’s family/estate can sue doctors/nurses who violate confidentiality after his death?”
I tried looking it up, but couldn’t find anything conclusive. Does the confidentiality clause end once a patient is deceased? Is this law determined state by state?
I realize this isn’t the right place for asking this & I apologize. I looked for your email, but couldn’t find it anywhere on your site.
I hope you can provide an answer.
Thank you
It seems to me that modern-date Christianity is all about forgiveness… of Christian sinners. Behavior that would be relentlessly disparaged when done by a non-believer becomes almost a Christian cause celebre when done by a Christian who then asks for forgiveness.
Palin’s pregnant kid, for example, somehow became a paragon of responsible decision-making. If Barack Obama had been running for president with a pregnant-out-of-wedlock teen, he would have been eviscerated by the Christian right (who also would have absurdly denied that there were ANY racial undertones to their criticism).
thatmtnman writes: I love the way you write! you’re funny, clear and to the point! “have at ’em’ I say!
cheers!
me: thanks, doll
GWLawSchoolMom,
I love the way you write! you’re funny, clear and to the point! “have at ’em’ I say!
cheers!
Mike S writes: f there is a heaven, despite my “fornication,” I’ll be there. I wonder though how many of your fellow parishioners will be there too?
me: seems that there are two new members of the christian right to join this club…. senator ensign (r-tx) and governor sanford (r-sc)
and all they have to do to be forgiven is to stand up at some RNC lunch, cry a little after going on tv to disclose and confess and get a round of applause and return to work. one wonders what the applause is for, being a successful fornicator or crying at their confession.
at least when I fornicate i do so unabashedly and with no fear of losing my job, my family, friends or self-respect.
and when I’m dead, I’ll be dead and that will be it… just another woman who lived life on her own terms whenever possible.
Boyle writes
Mike,
You missed the point. Sex before marriage is wrong. Your angle is saying that people don’t marry for love but rather lust. This wrong. People simply don’t want commitment anymore. Just because divorce is high in the Bible Belt, doesn’t give moral right to have sex before marriage. There are consequences to these actions. Unfortnately, BOTH women and men want to play but not pay. If they are not held accountable by our country then God will hold the country responsible and yes they will be judged when their time on earth expires. “Blessed is the nation whose lord is God”
me: see, this is how it works in the real, adult world: you get to be in charge of your life. I get to be in charge of my life. this means that neither you or your religious leaders get to tell me, my sister, my nieces, my daughter or any other females what to do with our bodies. sex is only wrong when someone does not want to copulate but is forced to out of duty or religious belief or as a result of rape.
sex is fun. it feels good.
morality is an individual thing. we all get to sign up for the morals and standards that suit us best.
abortion is not only a remedy to single women who do not choose to carry a pregnancy to term. it is also a remedy for married women who decide with their doctors on a private and legal medical procedure. It’s no one’s business but hers.
don’t like it? too bad.
Hi, Professor Turley!
Just wanted to let you know that I enjoy listening to you when you’re on Rachel’s show — oh, and your hair always looks PERFECTLY coiffed! Well done! :o)
Jesus never said to give to the poor and keep givivng and kep giving and so on. He only stated once to the rich young ruler to give all he had because that man had a greater love for money than he did for God. Taking from one to give to another is theft whether legal or not.
Paul and Silas were in jail and an angel rexcued them. Paul was not upset with the teachings of Peter but rather his hypocrisy. Peter had eyes opened from Cornelius-a Gentile then kept going back to the laws of the Jews. Works takes away from the free gift of salvation that is why it is by faith.
Finally, our founders never intended their to be a separation of church and state but rather both hand in hand. Ben Franklin began prayer in our congres which still exists today. The ten commandments are posted in the Supreme Court. The llaw only states that Congress shall make no LAW establishing a religion or preventing the free exercise there of. George Washington was a man of prayer. Don’t try to refute this by showing their imperfections because we are all imperfect people.
Mr Boyle, Actually, taking from the rich, who may or may not be deserving of the riches, and giving to the poor who may or may not be responsible for their condition, is a good thing. I heard that from Jesus. Actually, the rich should give of their riches to help the poor in all circumstances is what Jesus actually said. But, that never works…
“Paul also explained very clearly why God has blinded the eyes of the Jew in Romans 10-11—Unbelief.”
Mr. Boyle,
Paul was mad because James (Jesus Brother), Peter and the rest of the Jerusalem Church didn’t follow his teachings. They felt, quite rightly, that they were chosen as Jesus disciples, rather than Paul. He was someone who persecuted Jesus followers and the felt off his horse with heat stroke on his way to Damascus. Since he was annoying to them they sent him off to proselytize the gentiles. Jews had no reason to follow Paul and to be frank with you I see no reason to follow him either. I am quite satisfied with my religion. As for the rapture coming I don’t agree. Revelations was written perhaps 200 years after Jesus and never should have been put into the Christian Canon. The irony of it is that most biblical historians believe that revelations was written about the roman persecution of Christians and then a few years later the Romans took over Christianity and placed its’ predictions far into the future. This is what I believe.
As I’ve also written I don’t believe that any religion offers more than an approximation of God and so all people who are cognizant of the Golden Rule will be in heaven, if there is one. This discussion pains me though because I have no desire to question anyone’s deeply held faith, as long as they offer me the same courtesy. As you can see throughout our dialogue I’ve treated you with respect.
I fear though, that in your earnestness you are beginning to disrespect me. In truth you are showing a side of yourself that you have heretofore hidden. You are here on this site to proselytize. In your proselytizing you are being disrespectful, because none here are seeking it and most who post here have their own rather informed view of their faith, or lack of it. I have indeed studied Christianity so there is nothing you can tell me about it. I have my beliefs and you are welcome to yours. However, please do not try to impose your beliefs upon me, or upon my country.
It is in this respect that some Christians have shown disrespect for others. In America our founding fathers were adamantly opposed to blending church and state. In fact their ancestors came to America to escape religious persecution. A vocal minority of Christians in the US today are trying to erase the church/state boundaries and make their teachings the law of the land. We see the same phenomena in some Islamic lands, though with a different faith. The end result is the same: Bigotry and Religious Intolerance. Please do not assist in making our country like some in the Middle East, except ruled by the religious laws that you agree with. This would mean disaster for us and for our children.
In writing this I understand that you are anticipating that “The Rapture” and therefore care little for this planet, your progeny and the possible future. I urge you to believe as you will, but in the small (from your perspective) possibility that you are wrong about dates and for the sake of our progeny, please treat this world and you fellow human beings with the respect I’ve accorded you.
The Bible was inspired by God. I know people that have been diagnosed with cancer. We prayed upon the authority of God’s word which can’t lie. They went back to their doctor and he could find no evdence of having cancer. I have a wonderful friend who stopped for gas only to find he had no cash. He prayed for $10 and suddenly a $10 bill floated from the sky to his hand. The same God who performed these miracles through his son Jesus also inspired Paul to talk directly against fornication and adultery. Paul also explained very clearly why God has blinded the eyes of the Jew in Romans 10-11—Unbelief. America has ben blessed because of our efforts to spread Christianity around the world. We now are following the path of the old Roman empire and saddly what happened to them is happening to us. It won’t be long brfore we are a third world nation drowned in debt and anti-God. I won’t see it because the rapture of the church will have taken place and I will be in heaven. But it is coming and if people can’t watch the signs then they are in the category of being blind. Social Security, Medicare, Headstart, welfare have all bankrupted our nation. Now the goverment wants to have national healthcare. This is like putting gas on a fire hoping to put it out.
PS: Social Security is a supplement to retirement. It is too bad that most Americans use it as their only source of income. What did government do? They sided with the people who made bad decisions and now they are doing it again. Taking from one group to give to another never works!!!!
Tsk tsk tsk . . . that pesky Council of Nicea rears its ugly head again. Oh when will history quit disrupting delusion that God Himself wrote the Bible! Oh when will the sheep fully have their own wool pulled over their eyes! 😀
“An unbeliever will be judged by what they did but they are not nder grace. NO! You can’t dowhat you want and expect to God to forgive.”
Mr. Boyle,
As a Jew I do not believe in heaven or hell. I believe, as do most Jews, that humanity’s mission is to make THIS world into a paradise. We do not believe that this world is evil since it is infused by God. The two great missions for humanity according to the Jewish Religion are to “Heal the World” and to do works of charity(Tikkun Olam & Tzedakah).
How someone behaves under these two guiding principles is how God judges them, despite the religious beliefs, or lack of same.
Now approaching my mid 60’s I have spent a lifetime trying to live up to these principles. I believe I have done so faithfully. However, the other Jewish impetus is the seeking of knowledge and that I have also done. I have studied various religions, including Christianity and my outlook on God is deistic and comfortable with the knowledge that good people of any belief are loved by God. No one religion, though most profess to, can completely explain the Deity. That is because we lack the stature as human beings to understand God’s meaning or purpose. I choose to live my life as a Jew, because Judaism resonates with me. I won’t impose my beliefs on you, if you don’t try to impose yours on me, or my country.
“Mike, Your parents may not have had a problem with your forniation but I can assure you God does.”
Au Contraire, Mr. Boyle, I can assure you that God does not!
Part of the reason for my confidence is that I have actually done a lot of reading on how Christianity came to be. Most of the principles of what you call Christianity today were set down by a Pagan Roman Emperor at the Council of Nicaea 320CE. Constantine needed the Christians to solidify his power and so hi-jacked it and molded it into a religion that was more familiar to Roman sensibility. Even December 25th was a birthday of the God Mithra, also born of a virgin and
before Mithraism (the predominant religion of the Roman Legions)also marked the celebration of the ancient winter solstice holiday of Saturnalia. This holiday traditionally was celebrated with sexual orgies.
Now as far as sex and Christianity went there were Christian Bishops, like Iraneus who was misogynist and there were the large part of the Gnostics, who believe sex was dirty. The Gnostics were eliminated, but their beliefs stayed. Misogyny
fit in well with the roman outlook and so stayed also. None of this had much to do with Jesus and/or Jewish teachings.
If there is a heaven, despite my “fornication,” I’ll be there. I wonder though how many of your fellow parishioners will be there too?
Fusion:
There is a God and I pray that you find him through his son Jesus Christ. God said “If my people who are called by name will hunble themselves and pray and seek my face and TURN from their wicked ways, then they will hear from heaven and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”
Indentured servant:
FORNICATION
With all due respect, Mr Boyle, the God that you describe sounds like a larger, most heinous abomination than any human has ever been. We did not ask to be born nor did we select the conditions in which we were born. I believe we are all like kites flying in the breeze. If some of us get caught in a tree, either by chance or by choice, I would not expect God to sentence us to damnation. When I die, if there is a God, I am going to have lots of questions and I will be sure to bring up your name….
Mr. Boyle:
Forniation is sin? What is “forniation” so I dont do it without knowing? If I did forniate and did not know what it was would I be a sinner?
Please I don’t want to be a forniator without foreknowledge.