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
Mr. Turley,
With all this praise your hat size must have grown 4 inches.
That you would “chide” Madison is appalling arrogance.
Those who’ve been kissing up to Turley, especially the women–did you know that Turley has vowed he will stop at nothing to assure that American females are never, ever going to be included in the nation’s contract with its people, the US Constitution? That though males or male pronouns are listed there 39 times, females are never listed there–and you know what it means if you are not named in a contract!
By the way, Mr Turley, I have read your news quotes on how haughtily you mock the efforts of those work endlessly to block sex discrimination against BOTH genders by passing the Equal Rights Amendment which barely missed passing by THREE states and IS declared “viable and contemporaneous”.
For this alone, you should yourself be impeached for professing to be an icon for the US Constitution.
That you would be willing to sling such sleaze around to keep females, girls and males from anything like guaranteed democratic rights is incredible. We 300 000 ask you to take off your “superman” costume and dump it in the garbage. Start over as a genuine person.
How you have hoodwinked these sincere folks (above) is criminal. Folks, go ask Turley what he will do to stop passage of the Equal Rights Amendment:
“Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”/gender.
Does not matter to him how anyone else feels nor how he ducks accountability for keeping American women second-class, in the company of Jordan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Lesotho possibly backed by his Mormon past.
Always ask for more evidence when worshipping idols.
There is an interesting blog entry at the National Football Post, where it is claimed that the NFL commissioner can fine owners of Green Bay Packer stock $5,000 for betting on NFL games. Can you comment on the legality of this?
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Packers-shareholders-can-be-fined-5000-for-betting-on-NFL.html
P.S. If the Rules of Evidence apply to all legal proceedings then judge’s character evidence is not admissible.
Connecting Blackstone on Judgment to the Founders of the Constitution must be like finding the Intent of Congress when a statute is open to more than one interpretation. We would look to speeches and writings by the Founders and to the plain definitions of the words commonly accepted at the time. I typed “Blackstone” “Jefferson” and “judgments” into Google advanced search find these words and a bunch of references came up. For instance:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/deism/blackstone.htm
Probably most people have some personality “issues”. I don’t think it is practical to monitor judges’ personalities. It doesn’t work to fire teachers on the basis of personalities and it won’t work with judges either. If you were a judge you would also react negatively to the idea that judges should be fired for having bad personalities.
What I am really interested in is regulating the format of judgments. I have until Christmas to resubmit a S.C. mandamus petition based on the S.C. having jurisdiction because a writ of certiorari isn’t available because former judge Edward Nottingham didn’t write an opinion in my civil lawsuit D of Colorado 02-cv-1950 and I don’t have access to the 10th Circuit either because they ordered the clerks to return my documents.
I found some good citations about the form of judgments in American Jurisprudence and would appreciate any others from anyone. I know that some people think that A.J. is too accessible but I think it is great. I found:
“It is a fundamental rule that a judgment should be complete and certain in itself and its form should be such as to indicate with reasonable clearness the decision which the Court has rendered so that the parties may be able to ascertain the extent to which their rights are fixed.” American Jurisprudence section 444 p 89.
How can I sell that to the S.C.? Help! What legal authorities will they recognize on the form of judgments? What is the legal significance of the U.S. Judicial Canons? Is the form of judgment part of the privileges and immunities clause? There must be something in some old law books…..
Here is William Blackstone: Of Judgment. The S.C. would recognize this right as underlying the privileges and immunities clause because it predates the Constitution and was influential right?
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-324.htm
The crackpot Judge, David Gamble, in Minden, NV has only gotten worse since his last ridiculous sentence, however now his dubious court orders have put many children in danger. None of Dave Gamble’s children will have anythng to do with him do to his contentious, controlling behavior. Instead of taking responsibility for his poor parenting, he has blamed his ex-wife, and every other woman that walks into his court room unsuspectingly. He has placed numerous children in abusive paternal homes without any regard for the law governing these cases, which states that there must be a change of circumstances to change custody. Gamble believes he is above the law and simply relocates children as far away from their mothers as possible. The children have been sexually, verbally, emotionally and physically abused and Gamble refuses to look at the CPS records. One child has died. How many more have to suffer because of his ego?
I like reading your stories…very cool!, But I am getting too many emails to read! So I would appreciate you taking me off your list of people to send email updates to. Thank you and I will come here to read your stories when I can. So please remove me from your email lists.
my email= mac@sti.net, my name is Mackadoo Maynard Jr. ( or mac). my phone number is 559-692-2939
34125 Hwy 41, Coarsegold, Ca. 93614
Thank you very much and I may re-subscribe later when I hope to have moore time.
wow, popular guy. Prof. Turley, heard you on NPR (of all places) on the way home from the doctor. Wanted to thank you for having the courage to speak up for the truth visa vi Obama and civil liberties. I never actually supported Obama, me being a libertarian and admirer of Ron Paul, but I did have some hopes for him with respect to civil liberties and the rule of law and felt that , certainly, he had to be an improvement over Dubya. Boy was I ever wrong. The sad truth is, neither the left nor the right give a crap about civil liberties when it comes down to it. I suspect that no one who defines themselves by the left/right paradigm in this country counts civil liberties among their important concerns. My best, doug carkuff
Mr. Turley,
I’ve tried to find a presence for you on Facebook but have come up empty-handed. There’s no question that a Facebook presence would amplify your voice, which I think the country needs, and I urge you to stake a claim there.
Dear Ms. Wolk
Thank you for your correction. I did look up the complaint on PACER after reading what you wrote and it said that the plaintiff suffered “mental anxiety, anguish, distress, humiliation and sleeplessness” but did not mention other damages from prolonged unemployment.
You’re right that the law firm advertises itself as “affordable”.
I’ve heard of you too. And I checked “become a fan” seeing an article you wrote about someone convicted of a non existent crime.
http://www.opednews.com/populum/authorspage.php?sid=51491&entry=&o=y
How often do you think that happens?
Re: Kay’s reference to Rentzell v. Dollar Tree. Unfortunately, you spelled the plaintiff’s name wrong and it was a headache to locate the ruling. The case was not completely dismissed, only part of it. As to your statement that the plaintiff must have incurred financial, possibly property damages and possibly physical (health) due to stress from the defamation–his lawyer did not include any mention of this in his very brief pleadings.
In this case I think you cannot blame the judge. In my experience, unless a judge is given every fact and shown every available evidence, and everything is explained clearly, the judge may not know anything about that area of law. And these days, due to the economy, they have less help and far greater case loads.
Please note I am not an automatic admirer of judges. Too many are political appointees who do not subscribe to the oath they have taken. In this case, however, I believe the judge did not have an alternative. My sense is the plaintiff is paying little for representation, which is why the complaint is ten pages and the opposition to the motion to dismiss is seven pages.
Mr. Ward
Do you mean the president or the president’s men?
Do you believe that there is a “right” not to have rights ignored, such as a right not to be prosecuted without probable cause, a right not to face perjury in court, etc.
I just read a court order dismissing Ralph M. Pentzall v Dollar Tree Stores U.S. Court Eastern PA 10-4270. Pentzall complained that his former employer’s agents spread lies about him to prevent him from getting employment. The Court dismissed because Pentzall didn’t claim that he suffered physical damage to his body or his property (house? car?) and therefore didn’t have a cognizable loss. And of course, three years of unemployment must have damaged his health and caused him to sell or abandon his property. I just don’t see how a court could decide that.
So do you think there is a right not to be defamed?
I read and appreciated your article on Obama and his poor civil liberties record.
I was wondering if you knew anyone (or if you have yourself) created a chronological list of Bush and Obama actions against civil liberties. I would find this useful, and I think others probably would also, to see the recent history of civil liberties ingringements.
Thank you.
David Ward
Seattle
Mr. Turley,
I am an American citizen who is the victim of our government’s torture program. I am in the process of writing down what has been happening to me. You can read what I’ve written at http://bit.ly/oM8HsU. If you do read my blog, please read it from the beginning. Of particular interest may be this article: http://bit.ly/psfAjB
If you decide it is worth your time to help me, you can contact me on Twitter: @BlithelyIdiot
Sincerely,
Mark Murata
I have been researching DOJ’s computer systems. I found out that the Warrant Information Network, according to OIG, has inadequate controls over who can log in and inadequate records as to who does log in. Once someone gets a USMS log in ID they can skip the WIN system and go directly to the NCIC and the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System. There they can post a notice that they want someone arrested and that can be implemented without a verification that there is a legitimate warrant and without creating an executed warrant. Then a person, such as myself, can be held indefinitely without a bail hearing, a criminal charge, a notice of rights, an arraignment, or a recognized right to an attorney. I don’t have a criminal record at all but I was held by USMS for 5 months without a bail hearing, an arraignment, or notice of charges. I was told in court before being imprisoned that I didn’t have a right to an attorney or to discovery or to witnesses on my behalf. I was told that I would only be allowed to make a short presentation and I was not allowed to cross examine the witnesses against me, who were not sworn.
My perception of my various blogs and other public notices is that what I am doing is akin to the warnings people wrote on walls before the WWII exterminations. Beware– our rights are gone!
You might be interesed in the following BOOK.”State Power and Democracy:Before and During the Presidency of G.W. Bush”. The book examines the historical formation of an American Police state.
Jonathon,
Were you born in Manhattan, KS? I remember a Jon Turley as a child that lived across the street. Jon’s Dad was in the military and both he and Jon’s Mom were friends with my Mom and Dad. My sisters used to baby sit Jon Turley. Anyway I was just wondering.
JoanWalshsalon.com
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7849.ZO.html
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons (91-7849), 509 U.S. 259 (1993). “Comments to the media have no functional tie to thejudicial process just because they are made by a prosecutor.”
Jonathan,,Is there a way to file a class law suit on Nancy Grace for her libel against Casey but just as importanly, against her constant abuse of free speach? Her words are offensive at best and downright evil – surely she can be sopped legaly? For example – how can she call casey a murderer when not only has she been found not guilty – but a murder was never proved. And yet, she can insite hatred by words and misrepresent the truth – and we can do nothing?