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, University of Chicago, and other schools.
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 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. In 2020, the federal court found that there 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 agreed to serve as lead counsel representing the Brown family from the TLC “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 of 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 to 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 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. 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 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 this 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.
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 has 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.
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.
For further information: Mr. Seth Tate – 202-994-0537
Icon made by DinosoftLabs from Flaticon
mary leon & mespo.
i doubt if there were ever two sorrier examples of americans than you two.
mespo727272:
I wonder if those who love Bush and what he’s done to our country are either making lots of money because of his policies or are blindly following him because they can’t think for themselves; they can’t go against what their friends, relatives and neighbors do. What kind of life is that for an adult?
It’s also too bad that these people don’t realize that Saddam Hussein could have been eliminated without our troops having to take one step into Iraq. Who ever said that Iraqis wanted Democracy? They have the right to choose the way they want to run their country, NOT have Democracy shoved down their throats with a barrel of a gun.
I feel so sorry for our troops–they had no say in being sent to Iraq. They have to follow the president and his policies, no matter how delusional. I wish everyone who supports this war would volunteer to go to Iraq and take the place of one of our troops–then they would find out how insane this war and this president really are. But those who won’t volunteer to go serve in Iraq are cowards and hypocrites–love the war but won’t fight in it.
martha h:
Your sons service is commendable. Your shrill defense undermines their service. Perhaps you haven’t noticed but 75% of the Country is against this needless, immoral war, and unless something happened last night with the Bush mob, public opinion still matters in a democracy. This election will turn on that war sentiment as all wartime elections do. I would prepare for your profound disappointment which ironically will lead to your kids coming home. When that happens, I trust you will being writing thank you notes to President Obama.
mary leon,
i have two sons in the service, a us marine and a us air force officer. you have no clue who is defending this nation nor why do you.
Too bad those who love this war in Iraq won’t have the courage to volunteer and enlist. Then they can “free” the Iraqis…
mary leon, hundred of thousands of soldiers and civilians caught up in war have had to pick up the pieces whether it was ww1, ww2, korean war, vietnam, or any of the other hundreds of conflicts in the world where good people are trying to free other people or oppose tyranny.
maybe you just need to stay safe in bed with your quilt over you, a flashlight, and a “save the seals” book…
mespo727272:
I wish martha, Percy, russ and the other Republicans would read the last paragraph I wrote above. War isn’t pretty and those photos I saw were terrible and sad. I know that the dead person is put in the coffins face-down before they are shipped back to our country, in case anyone but the mortician inadvertantely sees the body. This is due to the trauma caused by the bombs and other weapons. If martha, Percy, russ and anyone else cannot be affected by our beloved troops’ deaths and innocent Iraqi civilians’ deaths, all willingly caused by their president, then I guess I will just have to ignore them.
Mary Leon:
To your credit your are here to dialog with others. The vexatious martha j is here to cut and paste talking points in the hopes that we read them. I suggest we treat her like all the other white noise around and just ignore her until she moves to the next blog.
martha h:
Did you even read what I just posted above?
June 28, 2008
Delahunt Bobs, Weaves, Lies
Mark Levin’s radio show caught up with disgraced Congressman Bill Delahunt to ask him about his expression of solidarity with al Qaeda against the Bush administration, which we wrote about here, here, here and here. Unfortunately, on Levin’s show Delahunt simply repeated the same incredible tale that he told shortly after his encounter with David Addington.
To see how ridiculous Delahunt’s excuse is, let’s reproduce his exchange with Addington:
DELAHUNT: Was waterboarding one of them?
ADDINGTON: That’s what I’m answering, because I know where you’re headed. As I indicated to the chairman at the beginning of this thing, I’m not in a position to talk about particular techniques, whether they are or aren’t used or could or couldn’t be used or their legal status.
And the reasons I would give for that, if you’ll look at, I think, Exhibit 9, the president’s speech of September 6, 2006, explains why he doesn’t talk about what particular techniques…
DELAHUNT: Oh, I can understand why he doesn’t talk about it.
ADDINGTON: But you’ve got to communicate with Al Qaeda. I can’t talk to you. Al Qaeda may watch “C-SPAN.”
DELAHUNT: Right. Well, I’m sure they are watching and I’m glad they finally have a chance to see you, Mr. .
ADDINGTON: I’m sure you’re pleased.
DELAHUNT: Given your penchant for being unobtrusive.
Delahunt’s excuse on the radio is obviously a lie. He and Addington were talking about the fact that, because al Qaeda may be watching CSpan, Addington does not want to discuss specific interrogation techniques. Delahunt now claims that he meant to say, “Right. Well, I’m sure they [al Qaeda] are watching and I’m glad I finally have a chance to see you, Mr. Addington.” That sentence makes no sense. Obviously, the people who are “watching”–al Qaeda–are the people who Delahunt is “glad” to have a chance finally to see Addington.
If hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, the kind of transparent lying that Bill Delahunt is now engaged in is perhaps the tribute that crazed partisanship pays to the patriotism of the American people. It is sad that we have vicious haters like Bill Delahunt in Congress, but it is good that when the mask slips for a moment, and viewers can see how they really think, haters like Delahunt have no recourse but to lie.
PattyC:
I agree with you 100%. I have already issued Mr. Turley an apology for my posting, which tends to get quite emotional at times. But I will NOT apologize for telling the Republicans that they are so wrong about what they’ve allowed to happen to our country.
What ever they write to me or about me doesn’t bother me in the least. Ever since Bush got ‘selected’ as president in 2001, I’ve been saying that he’s going to try to turn this country into the “haves”, the “have mores” and “the rest of us–their personal slaves”. I’ve been called everything from traitor, unpatriotic, a hater of our country, you name it, I’ve been called it. They don’t scare me at all; because my conscience is clear. But they are the ones who will have to live with themselves because they decided to follow Bush by approving and even cheering his invasion of Iraq and the Killings that have happened because of it.
I wonder if Percy, russ, and any other Republican have seen pictures of our young troops after they’ve been hit by a bomb. I have, and I will have those terrible photos of our dismembered troops in my mind until the day I die. I remember one young troop said that he thought he had seen everything in this war, when he had to go out after a bombing to pick up the pieces of his dead buddy off the street. But, then he looked down the street and saw a little boy, picking up the pieces of his dead father. How terribly tragic and sad…
I have an idea…
Instead of posting barbs on JT’s Bio, which seems inappropriate to me, perhaps, he would provide a Free-for-All ‘Chat’ section.
It could be fashioned ‘On the Hook’ – whaddaya say?
Amen
martha h:
While in Australia, please pass on my recommendation to the Sydney Morning Herald that you would make a fine newspaper boy spouting the words and thoughts of others after screaming “Extra,” “Extra.” Could you let me know when you get an original thought? I think I have enough time. I ‘m only 49 and expect to live another few decades.
Obama Undercuts His Brand
The Huffington Post
June 28, 2008 12:10 PM
Sen. Barack Obama is risking his brand as a political reformer, according to reports today in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. In recent weeks, he has moderated or changed positions on a number of politically-charged issues, leading to criticism from demoralized Democratic activists and charges of “flip-flopping” by party stalwarts.
The Times reports:
In recent weeks, he toughened his stance on Iran and backed an expansion of the government’s wiretapping powers. On Wednesday, he said states should be allowed to execute child rapists. When the Supreme Court the next day struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, he did not complain…
…”I’ve been struck by the speed and decisiveness of his move to the center,” said Will Marshall, president of the centrist Progressive Policy Institute…
…And Obama endorsed a compromise wiretapping bill despite stiff opposition from liberal activists. MoveOn.org, the liberal online activist group, asked its members to flood Obama’s campaign office with phone calls and e-mails urging him to support a filibuster of the bill.
The changes carry some risk that Obama will erase the cultivated image he has as a new type of leader who will change how Washington conducts business.
McCain and other Republicans have used his recent policy statements to argue that Obama is a traditional politician, unwilling to take clear stands on tough issues and abandoning his principles when he finds it advantageous.
The Post reports that those who should be his strongest supporters are taking this as a wake-up call.
Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com
Thursday June 26, 2008 07:22 EDT
Keith Olbermann: Then and now
(updated below – Update II)
On January 31 of this year, Keith Olbermann donned his most serious face and most indignant voice tone to rail against George Bush for supporting telecom immunity and revisions to FISA. In a 10-minute “Special Comment,” the MSNBC star condemned Bush for wanting to “retroactively immunize corporate criminals,” and said that telecom immnity is “an ex post facto law, which would clear the phone giants from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with [Bush’s] illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass email.”
Olbermann added that telecom amnesty was a “shameless, breathless, literally textbook example of Fascism — the merged efforts of government and corporations that answer to no government.”
Olbermann closed by scoffing at the idea that telecom amnesty or revisions to FISA were necessary to help National Security:
There is not a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or protecting the people from terrorism, Sir. This is a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or pretending to protect the people from terrorists. Sorry, Mr. Bush, the eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counter-terrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat the thwarting of which could hinge on an email or phone call that is going through Room 641 of AT&T in San Francisco.
Strong and righteous words indeed. But that was five whole months ago, when George Bush was urging enactment of a law with retroactive immunity and a lessening of FISA protections.
Now that Barack Obama supports a law that does the same thing — and now that Obama justifies that support by claiming that this bill is necessary to keep us Safe from the Terrorists — everything has changed.
Last night, Olbermann invited Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter onto his show to discuss Obama’s support for the FISA and telecom amnesty bill (video of the segment is here). There wasn’t a syllable uttered about “immunizing corporate criminals” or “textbook examples of Fascism” or the Third Reich. There wasn’t a word of rational criticism of the bill either. Instead, the two media stars jointly hailed Obama’s bravery and strength — as evidenced by his “standing up to the left” in order to support FISA revisions that include telecom immunity.
martha h:
Like most of your conservative brothers, numbers make you swoon. Demand for oil is down 8% domestically and oil production is at an all time high. The cost to get a barrel out of the ground is still around $30.00 but your oil pirating brethren in the neo-con party want their “ENRON loophole” speculation profits and Big Oil wants big money as it always does (40.6 billion dollars last year for ExxonMobile alone), so the cost still hovers around $140.00. While there is demand pressure from India and China, it does not account for the obscene increase in price and hence profits to your friends. W’s disastrous economic policy and his interminable war have reeked havoc on the dollar and hence our crisis. BTW does Bush screw up everything he sees or just the Texas Rangers, two oil companies, the State of Texas and now the Nation? You may fool some of the people some of the time, but it appears about 75% have caught on to our war criminal/robber baron/buffoon Chief Executive. He and his party– along with your dubious logic– appears poised to make an fast exit stage right, appropriately. Bon voyage. Say hello to the kukaburras for me!
And as an aside, you don’t need to publish someone else’s nonsense in toto and of course, without attribution (it’s the neo-con way). Unlike most of us on the left, it’s only the right that needs to learn from flash cards.
Bill Clinton says Barack Obama must ‘kiss my _ _ _’ for his support
By Tim Shipman in Washington and Philip Sherwell in New York
Last Updated: 9:07PM BST 28/06/2008
Bill Clinton is so bitter about Barack Obama’s victory over his wife Hillary that he has told friends the Democratic nominee will have to beg for his wholehearted support.
AP
Bill Clinton is still very bitter that Barack Obama beat his wife Hillary. Mr Obama is expected to speak to Mr Clinton for the first time since he won the nomination in the next few days, but campaign insiders say that the former president’s future campaign role is a “sticking point” in peace talks with Mrs Clinton’s aides.
The Telegraph has learned that the former president’s rage is still so great that even loyal allies are shocked by his patronising attitude to Mr Obama, and believe that he risks damaging his own reputation by his intransigence.
A senior Democrat who worked for Mr Clinton has revealed that he recently told friends Mr Obama could “kiss my _ _ _” in return for his support.
A second source said that the former president has kept his distance because he still knows Mr Obama cannot win the election.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2211812/Bill-Clinton-says-Barack-Obama-must-%27kiss-my-ass%27-for-his-support.html
Ah the beauty of self-proclaimed statistics; almost makes ya look like you know what you’re talking about.
Almost.
mary leon, this is directed especially at you since you are one of those that obviously thinks Obama walks on water:
Change: LOL!
Barack Obama has artfully crafted an image as an unconventional candidate, a change agent and a post-partisan politician who represents a dramatic break from the status quo. But since securing the Democratic presidential nomination, when confronted with a series of thorny issues the Illinois senator has pursued a conspicuously conventional path, one that falls far short of his soaring rhetoric.
Faced with choices on fronts ranging from public financing and town hall meetings to warrantless surveillance and the Second Amendment, Obama passed up opportunities to stay consistent with his primary speeches and promises and make striking departures from customary politics.
Instead, he has followed a familiar tack, straddling controversial issues and choosing politically advantageous routes that will ensure his campaign a cash edge, minimize damaging blowback on several highly sensitive issues, and keep him away from open debates with his opposition.
Abandoning the far left rhetoric of the primaries, and those that supported him, Obama has now begun the move to the center where the votes are. The only thing left for Obama to abandon is his committment to a fast withdrawal from Iraq.
That may have already occurred yesterday at Unity Massachusetts where the candidate made note of the necessity for a slow careful withdrawal from Iraq; virtually indistinguisable from either the Bush or McCain plan for Iraq.