unnamed-1Professor 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.

Turley-600x287In 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).

05282015_6695Among his current cases, Professor Turley represents Dr. Ali Al-Timimi, who was convicted in Virginia in 2005 of violent speech against the United States who is 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.

05282015_6655Professor 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.

694940094001_6113691487001_6113685625001-vsProfessor 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.

download-2Professor 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. He is currently legal analyst for CBS News and the BBC.  Since the 1990s, he has worked under contract as the on-air Legal Analyst for NBC News, CBS News, 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


1,536 thoughts on “Bio”

  1. Folks need to ask themselves how they would feel about Trump being impeached if he had D next to his name instead of an R. And Republicans need to ask themselves what they would be arguing if that fateful call had been made by Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama.

  2. Thank you on behalf of the American people for being an outstanding scholar and using reason, facts, and a comprehensive knowledge of history to provide our nation with important, unbiased information.

      1. You are probably such a heavily biased person yourself and therefore are unable to fathom that some people arent just like you. While yes many people do show bias, there are those that put intelligence and correct information at the forefront of their priorities. These people tend to be intellectuals in search of knowledge and truth so I could see why you are unable to understand as you are likely one that feels the need for your opinion to be correct just because it is yours, rather than searching for facts to adjust your opinion when it is wrong.

  3. Thank you professor Turley.
    We place our Hope in your words this morning,
    They were impactful,
    Your presence in that room brought continuity and revelation to
    this judicial hearing and to all of us taking part by way of the television.
    This impeachment is not being carried out as the “framers” had set forth.
    Once again, thank you from those of us who watched in silence.
    There are no high crimes and misdemeanor here.
    Mrs. Marlene Huddleston

    1. So you think it’s all right for a president of the USA to ask a foreign country to investigate a person who may be challenging him for President in an upcoming election? Do you study history? Do you know how past dictators come to power? People like you and Turley are bringing our country down . Listen to facts. Listen.

      1. AGREE!! I am blown away at the ignorance being displayed. And ashamed of people who are more intelligent than that.

      2. Geez man. Do you people even listen to his words??? He never said don’t impeach him. He just said don’t rush to judgement. I would assume if you were accused of something, you wouldn’t want one single sided out of context phone call to quickly determine you are guilty right? If we are sure the lunatic did it, why are we so worried about all of the evidence? I for one can’t stand Trump. I think he is arrogant and may have done something wrong here. I don’t know if it goes to the level of impeachment. I would like to find out, using all of the facts, not one freakin phone call where he asked to investigate someone else who also may have done something wrong.

      3. Too much damn heresay. None of us know exactly what the Pres asked, so there are NO FACTS, just BS as usual. I take it that you are a wonderful DEMOCRAT IDEOLOGUE, right?

      4. So, any person who may become a political rival is automatically immune from investigation and prosecution? Where is that written? Answer: nowhere. The proposition is stretched to absurdity and beyond in this case: Biden publicly admitted that he told the Ukranisn President that the billion dollar loan guarantee would be withdrawn if the Prosecutor who was investigating the company on whose Board of Directors Biden’s son sat was not fired. But, because Biden might one day be a political rival of President Trump’s he is immune from inquiry? That’s not the law.

        1. Robert you are so right…I have been wanting someone to make that point for so long but I’m afraid most won’t be able to understand something as simple as that. I admit I have not watched the hearings in entirety, but have wondered why every single republican can not make that very same point. CASE CLOSED!

          Oh yeah and why do you think the dems and Joe are so againt an investigation? All it takes to not see that there is clearly something wrong there is to possess and extreme leftist bias.

        2. Biden was acting in the interest of the country. Trump was acting in his own rscist, misogynist, immoral corrupt self interest. Therein lies,the division.

      5. Our president didn’t ask a foreign country to investigate a person who was a possible political rival. Our president knew there was a lot of corruption in Ukraine, during the former administration. He asked for help to understand what role Biden played in the known criminality. Just because a bank robber decides to run for dog catcher, that doesn’t mean he can’t be investigated for bank robbery. Does this make sense to you? Your fake newsie has lied to you again, just like the russia,russia,russia conspiracy theory (that didn’t happen either).

  4. Prof stated on 12.4.2019 that we are a democracy; but in his position, he should KNOW that our nation is a Republic. Everybody needs to get off of the horse, and actually think before they speak – even research, check the facts, before they say something that can’t be “taken back”. Be accurate and exact … the truth, the whole truth, nothing but truth.

  5. Hello Jonathan,

    This is an article by someone I follow. The reason I sent it to you is because of the Judicial decision he is writing about and its potential ramifications. It is an example of, IMHO, judicial misconduct for not provided a rationale for the determination. It reminds me when my parents would tell me “because I said so”. I find this to be a very important problem within the system.

    Is there a solution to force the judiciary to provide reasonable explanations for their decisions?

  6. Darren Smith, what the heck is wrong with the Turley format? It continually changes from the traditional, with the Founders depicted at the top and photos throughout, to the new and diminished, bland “block and blue” style. It would seem appropriate for there to be only one Turley format, preferably the extant traditional “Jonathan Turley” website. Also, why is e-mail/nom de plume log-in required with every visit/comment? Thank you.

  7. I often visit your blog and have noticed that you don’t
    update it often. More frequent updates will give your website
    higher rank & authority in google. I know that writing articles takes a lot of time, but you can always help yourself with miftolo’s tools which will shorten the time of creating an article to a few seconds.

  8. Professor Turely:

    I am not an educated person, but I do not understand how an investigation based upon a criminal conspiracy to commit Felony Perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 671 can continue and be financed by the American Public. Would you please patiently explain how a 145 Million Dollar Bribe received from Russia and a 11 Million dollar bribe paid to Russian agents is not the essence of what should be investigated? How can someone (as Deputy AG Rosenstein) who committed felony perjury to secure a bogus warrant then use that bogus warrant to cause an investigation wherein the supervisor is the guy who committed the original felony perjury?
    This doesn’t seem to have been covered yet in your discussions.
    Rob Berrett

    1. Hilton. Allegations and semantics. Where is your empirical proof of anything you allege, Berrett?? When someone continuous goes anonymous, is it tantamount to taking the 5th for fear of being identified as a potential deposee?? Who, by de jure standards, withheld a Grant of Aid to the UKraine and sale of attack missiles against Russia?? Joe Biden, right? Whose fellow traveling unqualified Son obtained a position on the Board of a known CORRUPT UKRAINIAN company at a monthly payment he admitted to be $80,000.00 and an alleged take home bundle of $1.5 million dollars??? Knowing, suspecting or not suspecting Biden to be this President’s opposition, upon discovering Biden’s dealings, which have not been affirmed as authorized by President O’Bama, was it not the DUTY of the U.S. President, Trump or not, to call the UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT and ask what potential obligations did Biden create for which the U.S.A. could be responsible?? Your distorting and convoluting the logical and coherent sequence of events does not work with this Farm Boy who is a Registered but currently despising Democrat.

  9. Area 51 is doing illegal test on me doing the Pope story for Europe sodomizing witch is a courtmarsh offense and hitting me using the satellites as of religious persecution. My number is 8578809858 I’m in the Boston area.

    1. I was just scrolling by and saw this. I’m going to say this sincerely. Please seek help. This is not the statement of someone who is okay. Please please. I am not messing with you or trying to hurt your feelings. Go to a psychiatrist. For yourself and your family.

  10. In the matter of Jose D. Iraheta v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, et al. (Case No 4:15-cv-03227, S.D. Texas), a decade long legal battle between Major José Iraheta, a pro se Plaintiff, and the law firm Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson LLP, will finally be brought before a jury trial in “July/August, 2017” in Houston, Texas.

    The Linebarger law firm, “The debt collector that runs Texas” as cited in an investigative report by CNNMoney (, is a Texas based national debt collection law firm. The legal battle between Major Iraheta, Linebarger, and Harris County started in April 2007 in a state Court in Harris County, Texas. Major Iraheta’s claims arose from the Linebarger law firm’s, and among others, Harris County’s violations of Major Iraheta’s property tax rights under the Servicemember Civil Relief Act and the Texas Property Tax Code. The state court action is still pending.

    In November 2015, Major Iraheta filed a federal suit against the Linebarger law firm, and various entities to include Harris County, and Bank of America, due to Linebarger’s fraud and violations of Major Iraheta’s property tax rights, as well as Bank of America, then CountryWide, negligence and disregard for Major Iraheta’s property tax rights.

    On Wednesday, June 14, 2017, United States District Judge David Hittner, ordered the parties in the case, which includes the Linebarger law firm, Harris County, and Bank of America, to “exchange all trial exhibits on or before the 26th day of June, 2017”. Judge Hittner also issued an Order that Major Iraheta’s case will be tried in the “Trial Term: July/August, 2017”. Additionally, a “pretrial conference” has been set for July 12, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. before Judge Hittner.

    The Linebarger law firm is no stranger to litigation, as it files thousands of lawsuits across the nation and has been sued several dozen times. However every suit against the Linebarger lawfirm has been dismissed given its “immunity” or has been settled. Major Iraheta’s case will be the first time a lawsuit against the Linebarger law firm will be argued in a federal trial. A major milestone, specially given the fact that Major Iraheta , a pro se Plaintiff, has been waging the decade long legal battle against the, 100+ lawyers strong, Linebarger law firm without an attorney.

  11. Very very frankly speaking in all fairness and honesty that both Major Politcal Parties not only fighting against each others BUT ALSO RUINING Great freedom loving country is its correct?. I am, a layman willingly and without any hesitation not only going to say merely this and that as a FRAUDULENT PLAY but on the hands provides AMAZING & ENOUGH SOLID & SOUND FACTS OF REALITIES (EVIDENCES) whereby truly “‘””‘ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE –OR EVEN A STRONG CASE FOR THE SUO MOTO ACTION FOR HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES TO GO A HEAD IN INTEREST OF ENTIRE COUNTRY””””. WHAT’S NOW MATTERS YES FOR THE SUO MOTO ACTION or NOT?

  12. Saw your quote about Trump’s comments as reported in Comey’s written statement inappropriate but not criminal. What about coupling them with firing Comey and Trump’s interview with NBC’s Holt? Isn’t firing Comey for not stopping the Russia investigations obstruction?

    1. Obstruction? The president has absolute power to dismiss/fire the FBI Director. If it is obstructive the president has absolute immunity during his term in office.

  13. Thanks for the piece on the Hill about the sexual assault on college campuses. My son was almost a victim of this terrible “Dear Colleague Letter”. Even though, he could not be represented by a lawyer at the hearing, we had to spend $10,000 for someone to advise us. The whole process was a sham. The schools are so afraid of loosing federal dollars, they will screw innocent students. This must be repealed!!!!

Leave a Reply