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
I watched your testimony before the House committee today and was moved by your passion well articulated. I usually find amusement in Issa and Gowdy in their questioning, but I found myself wanting to hear more of your ideas instead.
I found this site today and look forward to reading your thoughts.
prisonpath.com applauds all efforts to raise the public eye to our massive incarceration issues. The USA is No. 1 in inmates, prisons, and etc. for many reasons including private prison profiteering to insane long term sentencing.
These background radio based transmissions have occurred in our homes, through three different states and every day and night since 2007. 7-years at 365 days per year, I’d say is now 2555 counts and indictments of at least 6-known individuals who are using us as experimental guinea pigs. Their ties are drug dealers on the CIA payroll since several are La Familia members in the Texas biker group with ties to Governor Rick Perry and ex-military members who are also in our neighborhood. This has followed us from Missouri to New Jersey to Texas. My concern is not my own well being, as I can explain how this is easily done, but rather was this done to Adam Lanza the Sandy Hook shooter, the Colorado movie theater shooter and most recently the ex-Navy vet, who shot up the Naval Base in Virginia. If the CIA and NSA are accessing medical records looking for candidates who exhibit psychological metal or emotional issues, then the CIA and anyone else who took part, should be brought to justice and the families compensated. I believe this is the CIA and NSA or both and I believe that they are purposely using drug cartels typically for slush funding black ops, to perform intentional radio torture in the act of driving some, crazy so they become out of their minds. The lady that rammed the D.C barricade was in fact hearing what she thought was radio via Obama talking to her. I believe she was targeted by CIA/NSA illegally accessing her medical files. We have years of video, audio and picture files showing how this is done via a remote computer redirect to a site that loads a Python Programming side by side operating system onto people’s computers, allowing a group of users to access the computer, re-partition the hard drive and modify chip sets, driver and registries allowing the computer to become a weapon used in sonic torture and remote CRT video and built in microphone reconfigurations. There is only one outfit researching this and it is the U.S Navy in San Diego and Whidbey Island, Washington. We have their files and I can explain how they are doing this as I have seen the operating system and read their redirects. We are ready to prosecute and make our case publicly–want a crack at it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi0jA0dz4SI&feature=youtu.be
Hi Professor Turley–ET here from Area 51–want another case? Take a listen to this–and ask yourself, “were those mass shooters delusional or were they really hearing radio talking to them?” I can explain how this is done, but for reference, we have been targeted since 2007, by some very disturbed people in our government and academic circles playing with things and people using life for their lab experiments. Just thought you might appreciate this. Turn up your computer speakers and tell me what you hear.
In countries where growing magic mushrooms, there are numerous kits available in the garden shops, both online and acute opiate withdrawal timeline offline.
If for nothing else, the following six amazing everyday foods can help you live longer.
Dear Jonathan Turley,
In November I am filing civil rights violations charges against Justice Scalia under;
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245, Federally Protected Activities 1.) b.) e.)
If you are interested, please send me an email address that I can attach the description of charges that I made up for the FBI and the DOJ.
I think you will find this interesting.
David Darell Galbraith
Dear Professor Turley, Hi. What is your position in regards to Twitter and others who use data mining for inside marketing and sharing via executives who sit on multiple boards and committees with other like companies in say Menlo Park and San Francisco, California–those same tech groups have direct insider information pertaining to their companies which are arguably shared with Venture Capital funders and their groups also in the vicinity? Is it fair and or legal for an executive who has privileged information, about his own company, (fiduciary implications) to share with others in in the pre-sale of say a Initial Public Offering? The industry term is “Selling Group” and is part of say Goldman Sach’s language referring to pre-selling a stock to create a market during the Red Herring phase–prospectus dog and pony shows–that kind of thing. My comment is really a statement that High Tech companies are building a pyramid scheme using each other to create a false market for those who “go public”. An executive at Twitter is not supposed to talk about his company’s inner goings on, to any other company let alone others directly who share committee and or board seats. This is the essence of Insider Trading and I just wonder what you thoughts are on this matter that is building another Tech bubble which will inevitably cost individual investors million or billions in losses when their capitalization efforts run dry–various stages of venture finance. Should there be another Glass Steagle like invisible wall for High tech companies sharing insider information with venture capital firms with ties to Congress for instance?
Mr. Turley,
In light of the government shutdown and looming credit default I was wondering whether or not those in congress who advocate positions that have voted for those options are guilty of impeachable offenses. I was looking at “impeachment” at Wikipedia and it referred to “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”; “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” are defined as follows by Wikipedia:
“The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.”
I find myself also wondering whether or not elected officials who espouse religious beliefs above their constitutional obligations (e.g.: Michelle Bachman) might also be impeachable under the “perjury of oath” clause in the above reference Wikipedia quotation.
It might help what little credibility you have on this issue to at least get the guy’s name right: it’s Dodson, not Dobson. Just stick to things you know like defending terrorists and traitors who cloak themselves as “whistleblowers” in a lame attempt to justify their treasonous acts.
I know Viktor Bout’s best friend, the so-called Merchant of Death. If you want me to hook you up as a referral, send me an email. This guy got royally swindled – set up by the Muslim Brotherhood and Kerry’s CIA. He sure could use a good lawyer if you’re in the mood.
Dear Mr. Turley,
I am contacting you today in the hopes that you will share your unique perspective on my own personal dilemma given your representation of Ali Al-Timimi. In 2002, I was a 15-year veteran Verizon Telecom employee working in the Washington, DC area. During that period, the company assigned me a seat next to Hammad Abdur-Raheem from December 2002 until May 2003. On 6/25/2003 Mr. Abdur-Raheem was arrested and later convicted in connection with the Virginia Jihad Network case. My inquiry is in regards to that period of time and subsequent FBI FOIA appeal denials for both my wife and me.
Mr. Turley- This is not technically a comment- I am trying to contact you to gain your premission to republish your article “Miranda– Confirmed, but Barely Alive” originally in the Washington Post June 27, 2000. The Washington Post has informed me that you are the copyright holder.
Please respond to me via email at maryelizabeth.williams@qbslearning.com and I can provide you with all the details. It is a commercial textbook so we can reimburse you for republication.
Thank you,
Mary Elizabeth Williams
Text Researcher
Q2A Bill Smith
Mr. Turley,
The Louisville Metro Police Department continues to serve and protect their own rather than the community. I am an eye witness and writer who has one heck of a story that the world needs to hear. A victim left to die in her apartment by a LMPD officer. After filing a complaint, the officer retired before any prosecution could begin. The attacker and the officer walks free. Pictures from the day in question of the victim are beyond alarming.
If you are open, I would welcome commentary, advice, and/or support with this case. We have connections and are working to put those in motion.
Thank you in advance.
Bridget Renee Kendall
brigitterene@icloud.com
Jonathan Turley is the only lawyer I’ve ever listened to who can bring tears to your eyes, when he explains and defends our Constitution.
Jonathan,
I found your blog while doing a search for Judge Patrick Murphy from Cook County, IL. I feel compelled to tell you about a custody case that just completed today where Judge Murphy’s ruling was unusual and somewhat shocking.
A woman, who lives in Cook County, IL and has primary, residential custody of her 9 year old, met and married a man from another city within Illinois, approximately 150 miles away. The child’s dad contested the move and attempted to prove that the move would be detrimental to the child, based on the child’s “ties to the community.”
Judge Murphy talked to the child in closed chambers where the child told the judge he wanted to live with his dad, but that he also would be very sad if he didn’t live with his mom. The mother’s attorney brought in the child’s counselor, who testified that he believed the child was pressured by his dad to say certain things. The mother’s attorney also introduced the Tender Years Doctrine, an older but still valid doctrine that states a child should remain with the primary caregiving parent until a certain age, normally around 12 years old.
The trial was quick with the mother being the only witness being called by the child’s father’s attorney. Judge Murphy ruled that custody be changed to the child’s father with generous visitation for the mother.
This seems to be highly unusual. Why would the Judge change custody from a loving mother to the father just because the mother is moving? The revised JPA which was submitted by the mother’s attorney allowed for more visitation for the father over the course of a year. It is also interesting to note the father recently lost his job under suspicious circumstance.
The mother is devastated. What grounds did Judge Murphy have to make a custodial change?
Hi Jonathan,
I am proud to count myself among those who have followed you for many years. You do incredible work, critically important work, and the people of this country owe you a great debt of gratitude whether they know it or not. Thank you for all you have done, and continue to do with eloquence, humanity, and humor.
I am writing because I found myself in an extraordinary situation in my business, and I wonder if it falls into the area of a violated civil liberty.
I am the President of a mid-sized service company that annually sells about $15 million of frozen food packaging to major supermarket chains and large institutional food packers all across North America.
All of this packaging is printed at one of four large printing houses in the US, so I do millions of dollars of business with each of them. With one of these large printers I have had ongoing problems for years, but remain their customer because they offer high quality films and distribution services that the others do not.
Recently, however, the problems got to me, and I expressed my frustration in an email to a couple of the printer’s mid-level managers. I received a phone call response from one of them, but the call was in fact a set-up. Unknown to me, the caller’s VP supervisor was listening in. The caller was also instructed to do all he could to provoke me to anger, and after this had gone on for a few minutes, the VP supervisor cut into the call, dismissed the original caller, and proceeded to launch into what I can only describe as verbal abuse.
Fortunately, the situation backfired on the VP supervisor. He received a stinging reprimand from the company owner for unethical behavior, and my relationship with that printer has somewhat improved.
My question is: does the VP supervisor’s behavior cross the line from simply abusive and unethical into an invasion of privacy or illegal monitoring or some violated civil liberty? Again, this was not a case of monitoring a call for quality assurance. Rather, this was a deliberate plot to entrap and berate me.
Sincere thanks,
Josh G.
Hello there, just became aware of your blog through Google,
and found that it is really informative. I am going to watch out for brussels.
I will appreciate if you continue this in future.
A lot of people will be benefited from your
writing. Cheers!