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
Why visitors still make usse of to read news papers when in this technological world the whole thing is accessible on net?
What’s your take on Bright v. Gallia County – http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0116p-06.pdf ? I’d love to read it.
This entry notes that “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.”
Well, Rep. Farenthold (R-TX) has introduced a new “Bill of Attainder” in Congress. According to the Washington Post, “A group of House Republicans led by Texas Rep. Blake Farenthold has proposed a bill that would withhold the pay of federal officials and employees who are held in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2014/04/21/the-contempt-act-who-would-it-would-affect-in-the-obama-administration/
This proposal by Farenthold and others to withhold the pay of federal officials is clearly and unambiguously unconstitutional because, as a Bill of Attainder, it is prohibited by the Constitution in Article I, section 9. (This prohibition applies to both state and federal governments).
A bill of attainder has been defined by the Supreme Court many times. One definition is (1) a legislative act that (2) inflicts punishment without judicial process (3) on a named individual, or a group of individuals who are identified with legislative particularity.
If enacted, the bill would be legislation (a law) that would inflict punishment (denial of salary) on a named or identified individual (Holder) with no trial, witnesses, assistance of counsel, or judgment before any court. In cases like this, the courts look for punitive intent by the legislature. Here, there is abundant evidence of their desire to punish Holder without judicial process. The sponsor expressly targeted Attorney General Holder by name: “my bill will at least prevent current and future federal employees, like Attorney General Holder, from continuing to collect their taxpayer-paid salaries while held in contempt of Congress.”
The bill does not name Holder, Lerner or others, but it describes them with particularity so that they are readily identifiable. It imposes punishment, since the federal courts have always identified denial of salary as legislative punishment. It is unfair, since inflicts punishment before trial and punishment. Punishment would attach even before any adjudication by a court that the officer had in fact complied with the congressonal inquiry, or had lawfully invoked any constitutional privilege.
The bill is a malicious and pernicious bill of attainder. It would allow Congress to impose contempt merely by adopting a Resolution stating that “the individual has failed to appear, testify, produce information, or answer pertinent questions when summoned by Congress or a committee of Congress.” There is no allowance for a witness who lawfully complies with a relevant request, or who asserts a constitutional privilege to refuse to testify, based on the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The witness is still in contempt.
Under the terms of the bill, contempt begins when the House or the Senate adopts a resolution of contempt. Contempt ends “on the date on which a statement withdrawing such statement of contempt is filed with the House or Senate….” It is not clear whether a resolution ending contempt is required. The bill provides for no relief whatsoever if the Supreme Court were to hold that a witness was deprived of her constitutional rights to refuse to testify. If the House or the Senate refused to file a statement withdrawing the statement of contempt, then the withholding of pay would continue indefinitely (although the Court of Federal Claims may be able to award monetary damages).
The bill would therefore deny salary long before the courts had ruled that Congress imposed contempt illegally. (This would also be a denial of fundamental due process by inflicting punishment before adjudication). The law would immediately be thrown out by the courts under the literal language of the Constitution and over 200 years of clear precedent. Joe McCarthy would have loved a law like this.
The Congressmen may be ignorant, but each could request legal opinions from their State’s law school faculties, from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), or from Professor Jonathan Turley at this leading legal blog . Without such opinions, the sponsoring Representatives are acting in reckless disregard of the facial unconstitutionality of their proposed bill.
Or they may be aware that it is unconstitutional, but do not care, since it allows them to engage is a cheap political stunt, pandering to his ignorant tea-bagger fringe supporters.
They will probably not even feign remorse. They can say that they will let the courts decide. But they have violated their oaths to support the US Constitution by introducing a clearly unconstitutional law. It is the duty of all elected official, legislative, executive and judicial, to judge the constitutionality of their acts in the first instance, even if the Supreme Court has the final say.
It is total hypocrisy for these so-called defenders of the Constitution to support a blatant violation of the express language and the “Original Intent” of the Constitution, as affirmed uniformly by the courts since the Constitution was adopted.
Why is everyone so afraid to check the president’s power? Has Chicago style politics (and tactics) permeated our government so thoroughly so as to eliminate all virtue? Has this administration taken Nixonian tactics to an exponential level so as to have an FBI file on every member of congress, critic and political adversary in the country, to be used to black ball or intimidate into submission anyone and everyone who crosses this administration?
Why is William Wilkins from Chicago overseeing the IRS, the president’s political appointee? Signaling his minions he states “there is not a smidgen of corruption” regarding the IRS, but why then would Lois Lerner invoke the 5th and demand immunity before being recalled. Our republic is unraveling and there is no man willing to stand with any courage or conviction to fight for The Constitution lest he is afraid, threatened or intimidated.
Archibald Cox would have none of Nixon’s intimidation.
I only listened to a small part of the NPR interview concerning the aggregation of power in the Executive branch. But being a Californian, and given the ultimate history of Prop 8, it, at least, gives me some sense of comfort that a responsible person such as yourself shares some of my concerns. To me, it is frightening that a Governor and state Attorney General can disregard what really was the will of the people. Simply because they disagreed with the outcome they chose to ignore it. And maybe more frightening is that the courts felt that no one else had standing to defend the law. Who speaks for the people? I would think that in a situation where elected officials choose to ignore laws passed by the voters any voter should have standing. Otherwise tyranny by any other name…………………….
I would like to acknowledge Professor Turley’s candid appraisal of our President’s executive performance. I am sure that Professor Turley and I would disagree on many political issues, but he is sending a valuable message to all of America when he warns of runaway executive power and the lack of critical personal responsibility. He, like I, enjoys his freedom to decide, debate, and defend his own opinion.
Can the liberal mind imagine a “conservative” president ignoring the enforcement of state protection of Planned Parenthood facilities, or the failure to prosecute legislation requiring background checks for gun buyers. How about returning to enforcement of old laws still on the books by default….laws against sodomy, sedition, dissent, public speaking, assembly, and access to the polls, etc.
When the price of comfort and security is freedom, especially when yielded to a tyrannical governor, it is foolish to believe that the trade will provide for the citizen. Professor Turley knows the effect of ‘precedent’ on future government. It is the highest form of “custom,” the original source of law. The ‘slippery slope’ is a real thing, always viewed by the politician as a pro and a con. The US Constitution was written for the specific purpose of providing the citizen the chance to govern himself through equal voice and majority rule. It explicitly forbids the notion of the “divine right to rule” better known now as the ‘divine right of kings.’
All else left for others to say, I would like to thank you Professor. Your voice has been a clear and potent reminder for American citizens everywhere.
David
Good Morning, myra. Again, it was nice to wake up and read your comments. Keep writing.
Prof. Turley, I watched you on ‘Hannity’ tonight and I agree with you wholeheartedly. I want to thank you for stepping up and speaking to the people to let them know what the country is facing.
Too many are oblivious of the danger this President, Congress and Judicial body has placed our country in. We have a lot to lose if the parties don’t wake up and realize how fragile our governing system is at the moment. The polarization between the parties must be stopped. We need more people of your constitutional knowledge who are from both political parties to come forward with the message that each division of government has a particular duty and the divisions (House, Senate, and President) are equal. Our forefathers did not set up the system for one division to bypass the other.
Today, it seems to be one party calling the other party liars and if more people from your political persuasion do not speak out, I fear we may never get enough people to listen to the message you conveyed tonight to Mr. Hannity. It seems that many have lost the ability to tell the truth from a lie and tonight you put the onus of this polarization squarely where it belongs. Once again, I thank you for speaking out.
Myra: couldn’t agree with you more.
In reply to M Clayton, We have a Constitution and we should honor it. What should be done is to put a stop to the President who abuses his powers. Just because “O” chooses to run ram-shod over the constitution, we must prevent it from happening again. We need a president that respects our country, its laws, its Constitution and the people. Otherwise we no longer have a democracy. it becomes a downhill spiral.
William M. Clayton: You make an excellent point. Obama is setting a dangerous precedent because it undermines the very foundations of our system of government. That’s why it is critical for the Legislative and Judicial branches of government to attack the Executive constitutionally and legally.
If Obama can use executive orders to give different groups waivers from the ObamaCare mandates, why couldn’t a different President
offer the same kind of waivers from enforcement of the Federal Income Tax or order the IRS not to enforce portions of the tax code?
I think this may be a whole in Obama’s stratagey. Please give me your opinion.
Sorry, tired (overly-lengthy MCAT study session) period. I particularly appreciate your principled attacking abuses of both the right *and* left, despite whatever personal biases you might hold. That in particular resonates with me, given the sickening and dispiriting frequency for which the alternative is expressed..
Godspeed!!
– Tom
Dr. Turley, I just wanted to express my appreciation for your principled, immaculately posed opinions. Although admittedly I am a right-libertarian economically, and a bit of a social ‘commie’ liberal, above all I am an engineer, and have a deep appreciation for logical arguments. I don’t always agree with your views, but my god do I appreciate your arguments.
If I were president (will the horrors never cease!!), I’d put you on the Supreme Court for your impartiality and intelligence and constitutional insights and ability to view the impact upon all sides. Even if you pissed me off until the day I died, I’d not regret a day..
Kudos, Dr, Turley!! And keep your feedback coming to the non-political, non-media, non-legal class. We desperately need you!!
– Respects from an ordinary, worried citizen ….. Tom
No surprise here. Don’t all kings take holidays, this one just takes more than most.
Anybody wondering where the President of the United States has been these past 3 days? Wonder no more:
Associated Press: RANCHO MIRAGE, Calif. — With two visits in less than a year to the sprawling Sunnylands estate in Southern California, President Barack Obama is helping to fulfill the dream of the late philanthropists Walter and Leonore Annenberg, who hoped the desert property they used as a winter home would become the “Camp David of the West.”
Obama has spent two long weekends at Sunnylands since June, mixing diplomatic duties with the pursuit of a favorite pastime: golf.
While Rome burns, the Emperor plays golf for the past 3 days.