Bio

JONATHAN TURLEY
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

unnamed-1Professor 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.

Turley-600x287In 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).

05282015_6695Among 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.

05282015_6655Professor 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.

694940094001_6113691487001_6113685625001-vsProfessor 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.

download-2Professor 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

1,633 thoughts on “Bio”

  1. Mr. Turley:

    You have probably received this question many times; why does your tag line define res ipsa loquitur as “The thing itself speaks” when it is universally taught as “the thing speaks for itself”. Are all the law schools teaching the phrase wrong or are you just translating in the order of the words for the American public to understand in the syntax of the English language? If it is the latter, I believe this distorts the eloquence of the latin phrase.

    Please comment.

    Thank you.

    Stephen Lustig

  2. Dear Professor Turley:

    Thanks for your work in several areas including the military gay ban.

    I’m a former Air Force officer and US Academy grad who suffered a witchhunt in Spokane in 1990/91 and was forced to resign. This was before Clinton created “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”.

    Ironically, you look like you are related to the unit operations officer at the time, who had the same surname, and I think was from Chicago. He was amazing, non-judgmental, and wrote me an excellent letter of recommendation to my “board”, who thankfully gave me an Honorable Discharge.

    Regardless of whether you are related (you guys even look like brothers, or at least cousins lol), thanks for what you have done in speaking about this issue as well as others impacting military families.

    JA

  3. Dear Prof Turley,
    My dad died of liver and pancreatic cancer after working on the Stealth at area51 from the 70 through the 80s. He also had a mysterious rash we never understood. My father, who took the “oath” of course would never discuss a damn thng about area 51 but I’ve often wondered why he all of the sudden got cancer and died very quickly. I was looking up area 51 and radiation exposure from past nuclear testing there and then come about a few articles about other environmental problems at the ranch. Can you tell me where the Area 51 lawsuit is at now? Thank you.

    Janet Not my real name just in case. LOL

  4. Prof Turley,

    Greetings and kudos for your highly instructive MSNBC appearances and blog.

    I have a query related to a local news item here in central Florida:

    Mulberry Mayor Is Accused of Sex With 17-Year-Old Boy

    The 17 yr old misrepresented himself as being 19, met the mayor in a bar and had consensual sex with him once. The 17 yr old blabbed about the encounter and now the mayor is being charged with having sex with a minor.

    Florida law makes it such that a person can be charged with a 2nd degree felony (max 15 yrs) for having sex with a minor (in this case consensual) even if he or she does not know the partner is a minor.

    Why does not knowing the person is underage because they misrepresented themselves not matter? What happened to the concept of intent?

    Thanks…and yes you should be SCOTUS member.

  5. Professor Turley,

    Can the Dove World Outreach Church be successfully sued to remove their 501(c) non-profit status if they go ahead with the burning of the Koran?

    From their own statements the burning would seem like a political statement on their part and out of bounds for a true non-profit.

    From a personal standpoint, I’ll have to hold my nose and agree with their right to burn the Koran for whatever reasons they see fit. I do believe however, at minimum, it is in poor taste and at its worst life-threatening for American’s overseas.

    But having the ‘right’ to do something doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be or won’t be consequences. And those consequences should be a serious challenge the non-profit status of the Dove World Outreach Church.

    Thoughts?

    Jeff Beard

  6. Professor Turley,
    Your blog about the West Texas judge and Bobby Stovall’s unreasonable sentence in a DWI case was interesting to me. I would like to know if there is a limit to incarceration without benefit of trial in West Texas, specifically Lubbock, Texas. My nephew has been incarcerated there since February, 2008, indited and awaiting trial since his arrest. He has an court appointed lawyer who has seen his client, my nephew, only a few times in the 2 3/4 years. He was given an offer of a plea deal and chose not to accept it because he believes that a jury will be less harsh in a sentence. He has a background of mental illness. This is his first and only offense. His crime: murder. His plea: Innocent by Reason of Temporary Insanity.” What to do? Texas is a bad place to be incarcerated.

  7. This is pretty amazing. A single post on the Turley blog has spawned three separate threads and nearly a thousand post on the Volokh site.

    “Mick” himself has led the posters, and is long on insults and abuse and short on legal reasoning and coherence.

    The Volokh Conspiracy owes a tip of the hat to the blog “VOTED THE #1 LEGAL THEORY AND LAW PROFESSOR BLOG OF THE TOP 100 LEGAL BLOGS BY THE ABA JOURNAL IN 2008.”

  8. Vince,

    I read most of that thread over at volokh and I think Yogi Berra said it best. “It’s deja vu all over again!”

  9. Here is a posting by GW Law Prof Orin Kerr over at the Volokh Conspiracy:

    QUOTE

    Ultimate Legal Blog Comment?

    Orin Kerr • August 31, 2010 12:06 am

    I found this gem in a comment thread at the blog of my collegue Jonathan Turley by commenter “Mick” at 4:42 am, May 22, 2010:

    How do you live with yourself? A supposed Constitutional expert that doesn’t know what a Natural Born Citizen is? I would say that you probably do. You know, and are obfuscating the fact that Obama is not an eligible Natural Born Citizen, NO Matter if born in the White House, in JFK’s lap. Obama Sr. was not a citizen when Obama 2 was born. You and Obama both know that makes him ineligible. Destroying the Constitution for the benefit of your Leftist agenda. Fraud!!!

    Awesome.
    Categories: Metablogging

    134 Comments

    UNQUOTE

    The Birther Virago has calmed down here at the Turley blog, but it is raging right now at Volokh…

    Of course, virtually everything has been discussed here, first.

  10. If lying in court is illegal because it leads jurors to make faulty decisions, why isn’t lying on the campaign trail illegal because it leads voters to make faulty decisions? Are the decisions made by the electorate less important or impactful than the decisions made by jurors?

  11. What do you think about PRO SE rights? Do you think that the First Amendment limits restrictions on PRO SE speech?
    One of our (my husband and I) five issues currently on appeal.

    Also, do you have anything to add about strict scrutiny analysis?

    I used the search function in the S.C. library and I went back about 40 years and the term “Strict Scrutiny Analysis” was used only in the context of The First Amendment.

    Do you know of a chart comparing the features of De Novo Analysis and Strict Scrutiny Analysis?

    So if you have a First Amendment issue, in my case having to do with DOJ imprisonment for the stated purpose of intervening in a 3rd party civil lawsuit, then you have a procedural due process right to a Strict Scrutiny analysis.

    Am I missing anything important?

    This is our addendum: 1st Amendment (the heart of our case), 4th,5th,6th Amendments, 5 USC § 552, 5 USC § 552a. Records maintained on individuals, 18 USC § 1512.
    Tampering with a witness,victim, or an informant, 18 USC § 4001 Limitation on detention; control of prisons, 28
    USC § 516 Conduct of litigation reserved to Department of Justice, 28 USC § 566 United States Marshals Service
    Powers and duties,28 USC § 1654 Appearance personally or by counsel,28 USC § 1693 Place of Arrest in Civil Action, 28 USC § 2072. Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe,42 USC § 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights,42 USC § 14616 National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact,28 CFR Subpart T United States Marshals Service § 0.111 General functions,28 CFR § 16.22 General prohibition of production or disclosure in Federal
    and State proceedings in which the United States is not a party, 28 CFR § 16.101 Exemption of U.S. Marshals Service Systems—limited access, as indicated Prisoner Processing and Population Management System, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 28 CFR § 16.101 Exemption of U.S. Marshals Service Systems—limited access, as indicated. Warrant
    Information System, 28 CFR 50.2 – Release of information by personnel of the Department of Justice relating to criminal and civil proceedings, Rule 4.1. Service of Other Process, Rule 24. Intervention, Rule 56. Summary Judgment,Rule 65. Injunctions and Restraining Orders,Rule 41. Search and Seizure, Rule 301. Presumptions in General Civil Actions and Proceedings, Rule 401. Definition of “Relevant Evidence”, Rule 402. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible, Rule 404. Character Evidence Not Admissible To Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes, Rule 608. Evidence of Character and Conduct of Witness.

  12. How do you live with yourself? A supposed Constitutional expert that doesn’t know what a Natural Born Citizen is? I would say that you probably do. You know, and are obfuscating the fact that Obama is not an eligible Natural Born Citizen, NO Matter if born in the White House, in JFK’s lap. Obama Sr. was not a citizen when Obama 2 was born. You and Obama both know that makes him ineligible. Destroying the Constitution for the benefit of your Leftist agenda. Fraud!!!

  13. Mr Turley-

    Having heard several times recently that the Bill of Rights applies to all “persons” on American soil…and therefore would apply to even non-citizens. I just had to get your opinion on this. Does the Constitution and Bill of Rights apply only to American citizens or to all people on American soil? I really enjoy your appearances on Countdown & pay close attention to what you say when you are on.

    Thank you very much!!

  14. I heard you on Rachel Maddow today.You used a term “From your mouth to G-d’s ears”. That is a common jewish term. Are you jewish?

    1. No. My wife is Jewish, but I most likely heard the expression first while growing up in a Jewish area of Chicago.

  15. Mr. Turley
    There is a group of us in Sacramento who have been working the legislature to give us a hearing on life to term inmates. We were fortunate to get that but they gave us little time to gather our stats.
    Do you have anything on the medical costs of inmates in different age groups.
    We are desperate to get this answer ASAP
    Thank you
    gigi pack

  16. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd9gXrSH7Ug&hl=en_US&fs=1&]

    Pause at 3:35

  17. Hello Professor Turley,

    I was watching Larry King Live and the guest host, Jesse Ventura asked Ron Paul, who would he nominate to the SCOTUS and
    Ron Paul said he would either choose Jonathan Turley or Janet Napolitano. Ron Paul says it at 3:35 in the video link below.
    I love the way you thoroughly explain constitutional matters on Countdown. I always feel a lot better hearing an explanation of constitutional matters from an expert like yourself. Thank you so much for what you do.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd9gXrSH7Ug&feature=related

    Sincerely,

    Amir Mian

Comments are closed.