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
Jonathan,
Thanks for turning me on to your blog. I’ve spent some time reading it this morning and you were right. It’s quite an intriguing Internet destination. Many of your posters are very interesting and intelligent people (although I’m still trying to get a grip on who constitutes “the regulars” as they call themselves). The quality of the conversations on any given thread is quite high, even when they digress. It’s truly a tribute to you that you’ve attracted such a following. What you have to say about the Constitution, governance and even general topics of the day really seems to resonate with people.
Kudos on a blog well done.
Gene
To: Jonathan Turley, Esq.
Out of a several year curiosity, I wonder if perhaps you are related to Jack Turley, Architect, who was Partner at Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, in Chicago?
As a young freshly minted architect (Washington University, STL)in the 70s
I worked in Jack Turley’s studio. He came to mind on the 4th of July as we
worked through that holiday one summer. It was fun, BTW.
I have enjoyed your appearances on MSNBC and your calm measured thoughtful commentary. Thanks for a measured voice in what is all too
often a debate in cacophony.
Sincerely,
Frank M. Hammerstrom
Prof. Turley,
You might be inter4ested to know that ther3e is an update to the subject of your post : Florida Prosecutors Charge Leading Atheist Advocate With Unauthorized Practice of Law Due To The Use of Esquire (http://jonathanturley.org/2011/04/01/florida-prosecutors-charge-leading-atheist-advocate-with-unauthorized-practice-of-law-due-to-the-use-of-esquire/) :
Activist Atheist to Sheriff: Leave Me Alone ( http://www.theledger.com/article/20110624/NEWS/110629694/0/APS )
She has filed a lawsuit against the sheriff, et al
AREA 51?
Burning?
Jet Fuel?
CESIUM?
That Fateful Meeting-
http://edtheradarman.com/Book_Excerpts.html
“Eventually a basic part of our cross section reduction methods”
http://www.foia.cia.gov/browse_docs.asp?doc_no=0001458639&no_pages=0025&showPage=0001
Johnathan
Thomas Jefferson invented the Autopen.
Ron Patterson
Dear Mr. Turley,
Can you briefly give me your opinion on the significance of Natural Law in today’s jurisprudence? I have not studied Law but was fascinated to read Ellis Washington’s “Reply To Judge Richard A. Posner on The Inseparability of Law and Morality.
Thank you
Jonathon,
I am wondering if you have or will read Annie Jacobsen’s book?
Doriana
I am working on a complaint against our federal government based on inadequate arrest booking systems per 5 USC section 552a subsection e (9). I have the 2004 and 2009 manuals for the Joint Automated Booking System and also the manual for the Prisoner Tracking System. None of these manuals require verification that there is an actual pending criminal prosecution. The computer systems allow the listing of emails of interested parties but don’t require that the interested parties be actual authorized government prosecutors.
Since 9/11 the feds have spent a lot of money on finger print, eye ball, and tattoo identification but the computer specifications don’t include any mechanism to determine that the prisoner is actually legally a prisoner due to an allegation that they committed a federal offense and/or that there was a hearing in which it was determined that there was an actual criminal charge.
Personally, I was held by USMS 3 times for 5 months total without a criminal charge. I don’t have a criminal record. I was accused of petitioning the U.S. federal courts without permission.
I am really worried that there will be a new organized system of citizen arrests without formal written procedure or criminal prosecutions in the U.S.A. Past genocides were quickly implemented. New computer technology enable mass arrests to be implemented quickly. Prior to WWII some people warned of the risks of genocide but they were ignored. I hope I am wrong. I want to be wrong. I have the DOJ manuals showing that DOJ computer systems are not set up to protect us, only to identify and track us, although the computer systems could protect our rights if so configured.
I was accused of accusing a convicted drug dealer of violating the zoning.
Dear Prof. Turley,
I hope you get to read my comment posted today, May 13,2011, regarding the striking French police. My daughter and I were
mistreated so badly by the police, it’s almost hard to believe. My sister told me she had seen something about the French police wanted to strike over there inability to consume alcohol and was outraged and did a search where I came upon your blog. They accused us of being drunk! We did nothing but try and search for a metro pass. I have been in touch with Congressman Frank Pallone’s office in NJ where I live and a lawyer from France, but still unsure what to do and have some unanswered questions. I hope you can provide some insight into this. My regards, Sir.
Is there any chance you will attend the Project on Government Oversight 30th Anniversary Celebration on 5/12/2011 in DC at the House of Sweden? It is chaired by Lewis Black, Patricia Derian, H Hodding Carter III and Conrad Black, moderated by Dan Froomkin and has panelists Donna Edwards, David Eirhorn, The Honorable Christopher Shays, and Matt Taibbi and the discussion is “”Wikileaks, Wall Street and Whistleblowers: The Role of Government Oversight”
https://secure3.convio.net/pogo/site/Donation2?df_id=1700&1700.donation=form1&JServSessionIdr004=ispf009ge7.app333b
Would love to have you report on it.
Dear Mr. Turley,
I can’t believe I am the first–and in these times, the only person to ask this question. I addressed it to a very senior army officer whose service included assignment as Chief of Staff to a major Desert Storm hero without a very clear answer.
I am a retired Naval officer, and as a requisite to our commissioning, we are required to swear an oath to “…protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic…”
As I look around, there is the governor of Michigan appointing a special manager to Benton Harbor, and for all intents and purposes, doing the same thing King George did to the colonies–taxation without representation. There is in my state, legislation which would demand a picture identification to vote–without making the identification free–an unconstitutional poll tax. These are but two examples of which there are myriad at the Federal and state levels.
Where legislation known to run contrary to the Constitution is proposesd, would these rise to a level where the Constitution is endangered or threatened? Is there a procedure to identify an “enemy” of the Constitution? How is the Constitution to be “protected?”
Or was the oath all commissioned officers swear just idle chatter, and empty rhetoric?
(I’d considered asking my two “red state” senators, but figured that would be an exercise in futility.)
Dear Gloria
In 2004, Congress passed an amendment to The Justice For All Act numbered 18 USC section 3771. This allows the victim of a federal crime to file for mandamus in a federal court to get a few rights including recognition, protection, and an interview with a U.S. Attorney. A victim is defined as anyone injured by a federal crime and includes emotional and financial damages in the definition of injured. Title 18 defines a crime of violence as including any crime with a probability or threat of force.
In 2005, the Attorney General issued a long memorandum about the law that said that they only recognize a right to mandamus when there is an active criminal prosecution. However the current DOJ website in the victim’s rights pages repeat the right to mandamus even when there is no on-going criminal prosecution.
I think 18 USC section 242 includes the rights to due process in a criminal proceeding — that it should be exactly as defined in the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Punishment under that act ranges from a fine of $1 to death.
Kay S. asked the requirement to instigate criminal prosecution. If you read attorney Harvey Silverglates’ “Three Felonies a Day” you will see that the only requirement is a prosecutor’s discretion.
And if he or she falsely charges someone, there is no penalty, no accountability. By contrast, prosecutors sometimes get a bonus or a promotion when they please those in power.
Rarely does a judge overturn a conviction because the judge recognizes the falsity of the prosecution. I’ve been collecting a few of these because I need a basis to continue believing our judicial system does meter out justice sometimes. Unfortunately, it wholly depends on the judge who decides not to be a pawn of prosecutors.
This sounds like a good case to me, (a married woman, a feminist, a MIT graduate), a case of procedural due process. What is the requirement to instigate a criminal prosecution? It doesn’t seem like it would be that difficult to establish standards.
FYI Story of the year: The State of Maine v.Vladek Filler
Please listen to this video of the police recording of Ligia Filler before she made the rape accusation against Vladek Filler. The recording is very disturbing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsKIcQhjaJg&
If you choose to investigate this case, it will not disappoint you that the full details are increasingly shocking, such as Ligia Filler’s child abuse, husband abuse, psychological issues and Assistant District Attorney Mary Kellett’s persistence to “vigorously prosecute all cases” and suppress evidence. This has not been sufficiently reported in the media and is a groundbreaking story filled with shocking details that could easily fill a one hour special.
http://www.fillerfund.com/
http://www.saveservices.org/2011/03/maine-prosecutor-coddles-known-child-abuser-in-pursuit-of-false-rape-claim/
Dear Professor Turley,
I just read your article about Clarence Thomas. His conflict of interest, his failure to recuse himself in the Citizen’s United case, and his failure to disclose his wife’s income from the Heritage Foundation are clear ethical violations at the very least. My question is, are these violations grounds for impeachment?
Thank you!
Professor Turley,
Great blog.
A few questions that have come to me that I’m wondering if you could address:
A. By what authority does a Governor, such as Governor Walker in Wisconsin, derive the power to use state police to attempt to search for lawmakers who do not appear at the state legislature? Let’s say they find one of the missing legislators – could they force them to attend a legislative session? If the legislator refused, could they be arrested?
B. Why isn’t the issue of collective bargaining a contractual issue? If state employees negotiated a contract with their employer (through their unions), by what authority could such contractually agreed upon terms be altered without mutual consent? To me, it’s simple – state workers decided to forgo certain benefits (for example, demanding higher salaries) in exchange for other benefits (such as retirement payments). How can those decisions, negotiated in good faith for consideration, be altered after the fact?
Thanks,
A GW Law Grad (’97)
Juli Star-Alexander raises an interesting question. I would like to see these issues addressed by someone who has the power to make a difference. Include in disabilities illiteracy. No child born and raised in the US, with normal intelligence, should be illiterate–if he or she has good teachers.
I read a criminal appeal that haunts me. A man who was illiterate when he entered federal prison on drug charges filed an appeal because he learned that SCOTUS over-turned other cases in which a defendant was charged with using a weapon when the weapon was not involved in the sale of drugs. This applied to him.
When he filed the appeal, it was dismissed as time-barred. Sure he was late. He included as an exhibit a statement from the teacher in prison who made him literate enough to file his own appeal. The esteemed judges did not care.
Last night I saw an old but timely movie, “Lean On Me.” It was about a principal who turned around a failing high school in Paterson, NJ. Later, I saw Charlie Rose which featured a woman who heads “Teach America,” an organization that emphasizes fantastic leaders and teachers who are strongly motivated and creative and inspiring. And recently on “Need to Know” a large part of the program dealt with innovative techniques used in various schools to turn failure into success.
I have always believed that children want to learn to read. If they do not learn, it is the fault of the teacher. I was a teacher. And when I became a social worker I was assigned a group of problem grade schoolers. I found learning problems, not behavior problems. But frustration with learning results in behavior problems.
Poor teachers create disabled students who, lacking the skills for employment, turn to crime.
Professor Turley,
Will you be commenting on the Irvine 11?