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 J. Turley,
Since you are the legal scholar of many issues.. I have a simple request to look at http://www.peacepink.ning.com .. Ms Sol invited me to stage a protest as any human can see something is not acceptable.. Just use your sound judgment.. look for my full name and you may have to make a dummy page.. but I promise anyone who understands Res ipsa loquiter can grasp foul play.
Respectfully
Jenny
Get two friends. choose wisely.
(amend to 20:28.)
Great web site, Professor Turley, almost as good as jitterbuggingforjesus.com. Nothing beats that one but I’m a little biased. Keep up the great work you do.
writ of mandamus – an extraordinary writ commanding an official to perform a ministerial act that the law recognizes as an absolute duty and not a matter for the official’s discretion; used only when all other judicial remedies fail
mandamus
judicial writ, writ – (law) a legal document issued by a court or judicial officer
law, jurisprudence – the collection of rules imposed by authority; “civilization presupposes respect for the law”; “the great problem for jurisprudence to allow freedom while enforcing order”
How about using writ of mandamus with Roosevelt’s law that is still on the books that giving money to a corporation is a crime???????? Can we start their?
Dear Johnathon,
My name is Barbara O’ Brien and my blogging at The Mahablog, Crooks and Liars, AlterNet, and elsewhere on the progressive political and health blogophere has earned me the notoriety of being a panelist at the Yearly Kos Convention and a featured guest blogger at the Take Back America Conference in Washington, DC.
I’m contacting you because I found your site in a prominent political and health blog search and want to tell you about my newest blogging platform —the public concern of health care. Our shared concerns include health reform, public health, safe workplaces, and asbestos contamination.
To increase awareness on these important issues, my goal is to get a resource link on your site or even allow me to provide a guest posting. Please contact me back, I hope to hear from you soon. In the meantime, take a look at the MAA Center blog.
Sincerely,
Barbara O’ Brien
barbaraobrien@maacenter.org
Dear Jonathan,
Surely you don’t read all of these entries but just in case; I think maybe I know whats wrong. Maybe Momma and Daddy didn’t tell us everything? We need to do something big real soon! We really need for some body big like you to speak out the truth before it is too late! If we look at the world of young people who just want to love each other and realize that there is only a handful of people who want us to kill each other. We have to ask why do these people want us to go against God? I don’t believe that God would ever want us to kill ourselves or one another after all the effort He has spent on this magnificent body.
Each of us has our own individual views of everything but yet we have many of the same basic Human needs; we all want to live, to love and be loved and respected, and we all want to provide and protect and do something good for our own. No matter where we live we all feel these same about basic Human needs.
What if we all decided that it was not fair to lie and cheat and deceive and steal from those who trust you just because you can? What if we raised the bar to the most honest instead of the biggest cheater and liar wins? For the past 60 years the only thing that wins is money!! And you best not get in its way!
People are preying on our good will and our patriotic hearts and it is obviously not for the best for the people or the future of the world. We need to expose the real trouble makers. Follow the money. Maybe to the oil fields around the world? Why would our own government promote an illegal monopoly like OPEC against the people of the free world and against the future of our planet?
I Don’t Know
Dear Prof Turley,
Any comments on John Yoo’s interview on Daily Show last night? Any chance of you challenging him for a debate on live tv?
Dear Sir:
Would it be possible for you to invite Bill Press to your house for breakfast, kinda like a Kitchen Cabinet? It would be really nice if the two of you could discuss removing corporate influence from our election process. The reason I ask this is because the two of you guys are the smartest folks in the media at the moment. (My opinion) Either video or audio recorded. I know there is no way that the humanism for corporations may be changed, but could it be possible? What would it take, politically (Bill) and legally, (you) to accomplish this. Please run with the “Kitchen Cabinet” idea and I expect no renumeration for passing this on. I just think the idea of a Kitchen Cabinet being brought back with a modern twist would be enlightening for those folks out here that would like to hear and watch a debate without the shouting and rude interruptions. Thank you for your time and I look forward, hopefully, that you might consider a “Kitchen Cabinet.” (without Jackson, of course)
Have a happy
Peace,
spn
This website contains interesting (mostly criminal) news:
http://www.obscurestore.com/
Hello Professor Turley,
I am a retired anesthesiologist who used Sodium Pentothal frequently until it was replaced by Propofol.Pentothal provides a rapid induction of general anesthesia.I am not familiar with its use in massive doses to kill murderers but that should provide murderers with a pleasant sensation before they expire (if there is such a thing).The use of one drug to replace three (cocktail) will probably reduce errors made by state executioners which lead to legal hassles.
Stephen H.Libien,M.D.(retired)
If you would like further details and facts regarding your article, “Father Loses Job, Seeks Reduction in Child Support So Florida Judge Increases Payments By $300 and Then Recuses Herself for a Conflict” please contact me and I’ll forward you John’s contact information. Thank you for picking this story up, I hope it will help promote change in a clearly flawed system.
Thank you for your article on the Feres doctrine.
I am a former Canadian infantry soldier who was beaten up during a hazing in Afghanistan by my new section. I was a few years older and didn’t think it was a good idea to get drunk hours before going on to man the observation post that protected the camp. There had already been rockets on timers set up pointed at our camp found there days earlier. I reported it and rather than having anything done, my chain of command refused to do anything about it I was threatened and called names by my superiors. The whole camp recieved information that “I” was the reason that there would no longer be unchecked drinking. There were threats on my life and that of my family. They kept me there for an additional 3 months while the guys who beat me up were allowed to take their vacation.
When I returned home, I went out for a drink at a local bar where I was blindsided and beaten unconscious by at least six people. Then the bar security (who were all moonlighting soldiers)Smashed my head hard enough against the door of the establishment and threw me into the middle of a well travelled street. This was because I was stupid enough to report the first attack.
I have tried to seek justice in the courts but am being prevented from getting to trial. In this country the laws are similar in the way that the Crown Liability and proceedings act combined with the pension act make it impossible to seek damages if a pension is awarded. Pensions are for loss of enjoyment of life and are non taxable awards. The Government of Canada uses pensions to illegally compensate victims. Its like setting aside a chunk of money for each soldier so that they can be used as a human lab rat. (It actually happened in WW2).
I’m tired of being a second class citizen. If our Prime minister were to be locked in the house of Commons for 3 months with a gang of angry New Democrats, who beat him up (I would have said Liberals but they don’t have the gumption to actually do anything, something their track record in government has proven).
There would be hell to pay. But not for a soldier. Even though as a human and a Canadian I am legally entitled to be afforded the same rights and freedoms as everyone else, because” I signed a blank check to the people of Canada for an amount up to and including my life” the things that were done to me, on purpose were okay. In fact they were to be expected as they are being considered part of my military service by the crown and by the courts.
I was unaware of these laws before it was too late to protect myself from them. I was a little naive to believe that this country was actually going to hold up its end of the bargain and try and fix this. My letters to government are ignored.
I will continue my fight in court as I have not exhausted all of my legal options yet.
Just wanted to let you know that yours is not the only country that has laws giving it the power to torture its own soldiers.
Have a Great Day
Glenn Brownhall
Dear Profssor Turley:
I was wondering if you will have any speaking engagements in New York City in 2010 where we could come to hear you? My friend is a huge fan of yours and enjoy it when you are a guest on Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow’s shows on MSNBC.
Thank you,
AM
Dear Professor Turley,
As a GW grad of almost 30 years ago, I missed your insightfulness as a professor and the way you bring to life many legal issues before our courts. Your authoritativeness is much needed in today’s entertainment news environment.
I also wanted to bring to your attention a Petition for Writ I filed on behalf of Dr. Ariel King before the US Supreme Court (Docket 09-613) that asks the court to look at the due process and equal protection being denied mothers and children in some of our family court systems. It also raises issues of rights of children under the US constitution and international law. These have been areas that the Supreme Court has not recently addressed, and we hope they will take it up.
I would be happy to forward a copy upon request.
Thank you,
Roy Morris, Esq.
Dear Jonathan,
I’m spanish jounalist. I would like to make you and interview about Nevada toxic verter. How could I contact to by email. Please write me to davidbeol@yahoo.es.
Thanks in advance.
DB
Impressive bio. Wonderful blog, very informative enjoyed it greatly. Tweeted a few of your articles. The Halloween post was a big hit on Twitter. Your right about the ACLU they have a long history and the surface of what they are doing is great, but when they let politics trickle in noone benefits. I hope that they return to their original values and plans and that our nation does also.
Cynthia Yildirim
Many many years ago I was lucky enough to attend a lecture of late/great Carl Sagan. It was perhaps 50 minutes of the clearest and most enthusiastic thinking I have ever been exposed to, and I was completely transfixed.
Returning to my supportive group of (then) current lecturers and tutors was extremely difficult. They seemed so boring! (They were extremely supportive and they delivered us through successfully).
As a legal student, having access to Prof Turley must be like my Carl Sagan experience. Everything else is dull!
hey johnatan i am related to you