Hubbry Logo
Jonathan TurleyJonathan TurleyMain
Open search
Jonathan Turley
Community hub
Jonathan Turley
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Jonathan Turley
Jonathan Turley
Jonathan Turley
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Jonathan Turley is an American attorney, legal scholar, writer, commentator, and legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism.[3] A professor at George Washington University Law School, he has testified in United States congressional proceedings about constitutional and statutory issues. He has also testified in multiple impeachment hearings and removal trials in Congress, including the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and both the first and second impeachments of President Donald Trump.[4][5] Turley is a First Amendment advocate and writes frequently on free speech restrictions in the private and public sectors.[6][7][8] He is the author of the book The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.[9]

Key Information

As an attorney, Turley has worked on notable cases in civil rights defense including the defense of Sami Al-Arian, NSA whistleblower David Faulk, protesters at the World Bank/IMF demonstrations in 2000, and the Brown family in their challenge to Utah polygamy laws. Turley has also served as counsel on prominent federal cases including the defense of Area 51 workers, and as lead counsel in the 2014 challenge to the Affordable Care Act.

Early life and education

[edit]

Turley grew up in a politically active[according to whom?] Chicago family as the youngest of five children. His father, John (Jack) Turley was an international architect, partner at Skidmore, Owens, and Merrill, and the former associate of famed modernist architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Turley has written about his father's influence on his constitutional theories.[10] His mother, Angela Piazza Turley, was a social worker and activist who was the former president of Jane Addams Hull-House in Chicago. He is of Irish and Italian ancestry.[11] He is the author of the book The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.[12]

Turley served as a House leadership page in 1977 and 1978 under the sponsorship of Illinois Democrat Sidney Yates.[13]

Turley graduated from the Latin School of Chicago.[14] He received a bachelor's degree from the University of Chicago in 1983, and a Juris Doctor degree from Northwestern University School of Law in 1987. He served as Executive Articles Editor of Northwestern University Law Review.

During the Reagan Administration, Turley worked as an intern with the general counsel's office of the National Security Agency (NSA).[15][16]

Career

[edit]
Testifying to Congress, 2007

Turley holds the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School, where he teaches torts, criminal procedure, and constitutional law. He is the youngest person to receive an academic chair in the school's history. He runs the Project for Older Prisoners (POP),[17][18] the Environmental Law Clinic, and the Environmental Legislation Project.[19]

Prior to joining George Washington University, he was on the faculty of Tulane University Law School.[19]

His articles on legal and policy issues have appeared in national publications; he has had articles published in The New York Times,[20] The Washington Post,[21] USA Today,[22] the Los Angeles Times,[17] and the Wall Street Journal.[23] He frequently appears in the national media as a commentator on a multitude of subjects[24][25] ranging from the 2000 U.S. presidential election controversy to the Terri Schiavo case in 2005.[26] He often is a guest on Sunday talk shows,[24] with more than two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox News Sunday. He served as a contributor on Countdown with Keith Olbermann from 2003 until 2011 on MSNBC, and later on Current TV[27] in 2011 and early 2012.

Since the 1990s, he has been a legal analyst for NBC News, CBS News, the BBC and Fox News, covering stories that ranged from the Clinton impeachment to presidential elections.[28][19] He is on the board of contributors of USA Today[29] and is a columnist with The Hill.[30] He is currently a legal analyst with Fox News.[31] Due to his decades of work as a columnist and network analyst, media reporter Paul Farhi, writing in the Washington Post, has described Turley as "the Dean" of legal analysts.[32]

Politics

[edit]
Turley in 2016

In appearances on Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show, he called for criminal prosecution of Bush administration officials for war crimes, including torture.[33]

In USA Today in October 2004, he argued for the legalization of polygamy,[34] provoking responses from writers such as Stanley Kurtz.[35][36]

In October 2006, in an interview by Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, he expressed strong disapproval of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.[37] Commenting on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which he contends does away with habeas corpus, Turley says, "It's something that no one thought—certainly I didn't think—was possible in the United States. And I am not too sure how we got to this point. But people clearly don't realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us."[37]

When the U.S. Senate was about to vote on Michael Mukasey for U.S. attorney general, Turley said, "The attorney general nominee's evasive remarks on 'water-boarding' should disqualify him from the job."[38] On the treatment of terrorism suspect José Padilla, Turley says, "The treatment of Padilla ranks as one of the most serious abuses after 9/11... This is a case that would have shocked the Framers. This is precisely what many of the drafters of the Constitution had in mind when they tried to create a system of checks and balances." Turley considers the case of great import on the grounds that "Padilla's treatment by the military could happen to others."[39]

Turley has said, "It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right."[40]

When Congressional Democrats asked the Justice Department to investigate the CIA's destruction of terrorist interrogation tapes Turley said, "these are very serious allegations, that raise as many as six identifiable crimes ranging from contempt of Congress, to contempt of Justice, to perjury, to false statements."[41]

Turley disagrees with the theory that dealing with bullies is just a part of growing up, claiming that they are "no more a natural part of learning than is parental abuse a natural part of growing up" and believes that "litigation could succeed in forcing schools to take bullying more seriously".[42]

He has written extensively in opposition to the death penalty, noting, "Human error remains a principal cause of botched executions... eventually society will be forced to deal directly with a fundamental moral question: Has death itself become the intolerable element of the death penalty?"[43]

He is a critic of special treatment for the church in law, asking why there are laws that "expressly exempt faith-based actions that result in harm."[44]

On October 11, 2016, Libertarian Party candidate for president, Gary Johnson, announced that if he was elected president, Turley would be one of his two top choices for the Supreme Court seat that remained open following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.[45] Turley has been repeatedly named as a top pick for the Court by libertarian presidential candidates, including in 2020.[46]

In a 2017 column for The Hill, Turley was critical of military intervention in the Middle East and questioned its constitutionality. He also mentioned that he supported the Supreme Court nomination of Neil Gorsuch.[47]

In the wake of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Turley argued that, despite his doubts that fraud existed, Americans should welcome the involvement of the courts to vet and validate the election results.[48]

Obama administration views

[edit]

In another commentary, Turley defended Judge Henry E. Hudson's ruling declaring the individual mandate in health insurance unconstitutional for violating the Commerce Clause of the Constitution: "It's very thoughtful—not a screed. I don't see any evidence this is motivated by Judge Hudson's personal beliefs... Anybody who's dismissing this opinion as a political screed has obviously not read the opinion."[49]

Turley described U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in an op-ed as President Barack Obama's sin-eater, writing:

For Obama, there has been no better sin eater than Holder. When the president promised CIA employees early in his first term that they would not be investigated for torture, it was the attorney general who shielded officials from prosecution. When the Obama administration decided it would expand secret and warrantless surveillance, it was Holder who justified it. When the president wanted the authority to kill any American he deemed a threat without charge or trial, it was Holder who went public to announce the "kill list" policy. Last week, the Justice Department confirmed that it was Holder who personally approved the equally abusive search of Fox News correspondent James Rosen's e-mail and phone records in another story involving leaked classified information. In the 2010 application for a secret warrant, the Obama administration named Rosen as "an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator" to the leaking of classified materials. The Justice Department even investigated Rosen's parents' telephone number, and Holder was there to justify every attack on the news media.[50]

In a December 2013 congressional hearing, responding to a question from Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) about presidential power in the Obama administration, Turley said:

The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he's not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power in every single branch.[51] This Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration. There is [sic] two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress. One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction.[52]

On November 21, 2014, Turley agreed to represent House Speaker John Boehner and the Republican Party in a suit filed against the Obama administration alleging unconstitutional implementation of the Affordable Care Act, specifically the individual mandate.[53] In 2016, the federal court ruled that the Obama Administration violated the separation of powers in ordering billions to be paid to insurance companies without an appropriation of Congress.[54]

Testimony before Congress

[edit]

The conceptual thread running through many of the issues taken on by Turley is that they involve claims of executive privilege. For example, he said that the president's claim of executive authority based on Article Two "would put our system on a slippery slope."[55] He has argued against national security exceptions to fundamental constitutional rights.[56][57]

He is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues,[58][59] as well as tort reform legislation.[19]

Turley has testified regularly during national controversies. He testified at the confirmation hearings of Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch,[60] Attorney General Loretta Lynch,[61] and Attorney General William Barr.[62] He also testified during the Clinton impeachment hearings.[5] Turley, in his capacity as a constitutional scholar,[63] testified in favor of the Clinton impeachment.[64][65] He was quoted extensively by congressman James Rogan during the Clinton impeachment hearings.[66]

Turley also testified in Congress against President George W. Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program and was lead counsel in a case challenging it. In regard to warrantless wiretaps he noted that, "Judge Anna Diggs Taylor chastised the government for a flagrant abuse of the Constitution and, in a direct message to the president, observed that there are no hereditary kings in America."[67]

Views on Trump impeachments

[edit]

On December 4, 2019, Turley testified before the House Judiciary Committee regarding the constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment in the impeachment inquiry against then-President Donald Trump, arguing against a Trump impeachment.[4][68][69][70]

In his testimony, Turley objected to the effort to craft articles of impeachment around four criminal allegations: bribery, extortion, obstruction of justice, and campaign finance violations.[71] He argued that the evidence did not meet the standard definitions of those crimes, contrary to the testimony of three witnesses that such legal definitions have always been used as a measure for impeachment deliberations.[71] Turley characterized the charges against Trump as a lowering of impeachment standards to "fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger."[72] The Committee ultimately rejected all four of those articles and adopted the two that Turley argued could be legitimate if proven: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.[73] Where the Committee departed from the testimony was the rejection of Turley's call for more time to develop a more complete record rather than fulfill a promise to impeach by Christmas—an issue that was rekindled by the delay in the submission of the articles to the Senate as new evidence emerged in 2020.[74]

It was alleged by critics that Turley adopted a different position on the need for a crime for impeachment in the Trump impeachment after denying such a requirement in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.[73][74][75] Turley pointed out that he denied that you needed a prerequisite crime in both impeachments and Democratic members in the Clinton impeachment actually relied on his position in arguing the case for impeachment in both the Trump impeachment hearing and trial.[76] Turley noted that in both hearings he stressed that a president could be impeached for non-criminal acts, including abuse of power, and House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler ended the Trump impeachment hearings by quoting him to that effect. He has noted that the only disagreement was the sufficiency of the record and his calling on House to issue subpoenas for key witnesses such as former national security adviser John Bolton.[75] The push for additional time was due in part to Turley's concern that the House was going to impeach a president for going to the courts rather than yielding to congressional demands for witnesses and documents.[77] Given the short period of investigation, Turley objected that such a move would effectively make seeking judicial review as high crime and misdemeanor. He noted that both Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were able to go all the way to the Supreme Court on their challenges before impeachment.[78] While Turley told the Committee that such judicial opinions were not required to impeach on obstruction, the abbreviated period of investigation undermined the foundation of that article.[79]

Turley was cited by both the White House and House managers in their arguments before the United States Senate in the Trump impeachment trial.[76] During the trial, Turley opposed the White House argument that impeachment requires a criminal allegation.[80] Turley wrote in The Washington Post that "If some of the president’s critics are adopting a far too broad understanding of impeachable offenses, the White House is adopting a far too narrow one."[81]

After the second impeachment of Donald Trump, he said there could not be a trial after Trump left office.[82] Turley's views were also cited on the House floor in Trump's second impeachment in January 2021 in the aftermath of the January 6 United States Capitol attack, particularly his opposition to what he called a "snap impeachment."[83] Turley opposed the decision to forgo any hearing to consider the implications of such a rapid impeachment, consider changes to the language, and allow for a formal response from Trump.[84] While Turley said that Trump's conduct could amount to an impeachable offense, he expressed reservations over the specific language of the article on free speech grounds.[84] He condemned Trump's speech before the riot on Twitter when it was still being given and opposed from the outset the challenge to the electoral votes that decided the election in favor of Joe Biden brought by pro-Trump Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives.[85] He argued for a bipartisan, bicameral vote of censure to condemn Trump's words and actions leading up to the riot.[85] Turley declined to represent Trump,[86] but did speak to Republican senators before both the first Trump trial[87] and the second Trump trial.[88]

Biden administration views

[edit]

In August 2024, Turley asserted that the Biden-Harris administration made attacks on free speech ranging from a massive censorship system to funding blacklisting operations to silence voices it disagreed with, adding that the policies were supported by Kamala Harris. He described Tim Walz as one of the "most enthusiastic supporters of censorship and blacklisting systems", and asserted that Walz made a false claim about free speech and the claim was rejected by the Supreme Court. As Harris tapped Walz as her running mate, Turley argued that free speech was the key issue in 2024 United States presidential election, comparing it to the 1800 United States presidential election.[89]

Trump administration views

[edit]

In a February 2025 post to X, Turley strongly objected to a suggestion made by Trump Administration border affairs advisor Tom Homan that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might be criminally charged for hosting a webinar for illegal migrants titled "Know Your Rights" if it were determined the webinar had impeded the efforts of federal law enforcement officers.[91][90] Turley contended Homan's comments were a "baseless threat" and that such a move would be "an assault on free speech rights".[91][90]

Awards

[edit]

Turley was ranked as 38th in the top 100 most cited "public intellectuals" (and second most cited law professor) in a 2001 study by Judge Richard Posner of intellectuals referenced in the media and public debates.[92] In 2024, the Washingtonian recognized Turley as one of the most influential persons in shaping policy.[93]

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[19] and The Week magazine.[94]

In 2008 he was awarded an honorary doctorate of law from John Marshall Law School in recognition of his career as an advocate of civil liberties and constitutional rights.[95]

He was ranked among the nation's top 500 lawyers in 2008.[96] Turley was found to be the second most cited law professor in the country as well as being ranked as one of the top ten military lawyers.[19]

In 2008 his blog was ranked as the top law professor blog and legal theory blog by the American Bar Association Journal survey of the top 100 blogs.[97][98] 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.[28] He has also been ranked in the top five most popular law professors on Twitter.[99]  He has received other awards including the James Madison award and was declared one of four university fellows at the Utah Valley University in 2019.[28]

Prominent cases

[edit]

Turley has served as counsel in notable cases; representing whistleblowers, military personnel, and a wide range of other clients in national security, environmental, and constitutional law cases. His cases as lead counsel have secured decisions striking down both a federal and a state law,[28] among them:

  • Larry Hanauer, a House Intelligence Committee staff member falsely accused of leaking classified information to The New York Times[100]
  • David Faulk, a whistleblower who revealed abuses at NSA's Fort Gordon surveillance programs[101]
  • Dr. Eric Foretich,[59] in overturning the Elizabeth Morgan Act in 2003[102]
  • Former Judge Thomas Porteous's impeachment trial defense[58] Turley characterized Porteous's chronic bribe-taking as merely being a "moocher", convicted on four articles of impeachment, removed as judge by a Senate vote of 94-2[103][104]
  • Defendants in terrorism cases, including Ali al-Tamimi (the alleged head of the Virginia Jihad/Paintball conspiracy)-[105] On September 1, 2020, a federal court found that his challenges to his conviction had merit and ordered his release to Turley at Supermax in Colorado to drive back to Virginia to avoid risks of COVID-19.[106]
  • Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada.[107][108]
  • Lead counsel in the litigation over the mass arrests at the World Bank/IMF protests in Washington.[109]
  • Turley represented the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado[110]
  • Turley testified on December 4, 2019, regarding the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump, regarding constitutional issues not supporting the impeachment of Trump.[111]
  • Turley filed a challenge to the Libyan War on behalf of ten members of Congress. The lawsuit was before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.[112]

Personal life

[edit]

Turley married his wife, Leslie, in 1997. They have four children.[113][114]

Swatting

[edit]

On December 29, 2023, Turley was targeted as part of the 2023 swatting attempts of American politicians.[115]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Jonathan Turley

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School, a position he has held since 1998 after joining the faculty in 1990. A nationally recognized legal scholar, Turley specializes in constitutional law, tort law, and legal theory, with over three dozen academic articles and books addressing civil liberties and government accountability. He has testified before Congress more than 100 times, including as one of only two academics appearing in both the 1998 impeachment inquiry of President Bill Clinton and the 2019 inquiry into President Donald Trump, where he emphasized the need for clear evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors rather than partisan haste. Turley's commentary as a frequent media analyst and his advocacy for free speech—highlighted in works like The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage—have positioned him as a critic of censorship, cancel culture, and institutional biases in academia and media, often challenging narratives from left-leaning establishments despite his non-partisan academic record. His 2019 impeachment testimony, arguing against impeachment absent stronger proof of intent, drew accusations of pro-Trump bias from Democratic lawmakers and outlets, though Turley has consistently critiqued overreach by administrations of both parties, including recent inquiries into President Biden.

Early Life and Education

Childhood and Family Background

Jonathan Turley was born on May 6, 1961, in , . He was the youngest of five children, with siblings including brothers Dominic and Christopher and sisters Angela and Jennifer. His father, John Kenneth "Jack" Turley (August 20, 1925–February 19, 2005), immigrated to after with his new wife and limited funds; he trained under architect at the Illinois Institute of Technology before becoming a at the firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, where he contributed to international projects. Of Irish descent, Jack Turley rose from modest origins as a "string-bean Irish street kid" to prominence in modernist . His mother, Angela Piazza Turley (1927–July 12, 2025), grew up in an Ohio coal-mining town amid poverty and ethnic prejudice faced by her Italian immigrant parents—father Dominick, a United Mine Workers organizer who died of black lung disease, and mother Josephine. In Chicago's Uptown neighborhood, she worked as a social worker, served as president of the Jane Addams Hull-House Association, and led activism for fair housing, often confronting slum landlords and gang members; Turley, as a young child, accompanied her on these efforts, clinging to her skirts during neighborhood disputes. The family's politically engaged environment, shaped by his mother's advocacy and father's professional ascent, influenced Turley's early exposure to public interest issues in a working-class, activist household near Lake Michigan.

Academic Training

Turley earned a degree from the in 1983. He subsequently obtained a from Northwestern University School of Law in 1987. In 2008, John Marshall Law School conferred upon him an honorary Doctor of Laws degree in recognition of his contributions to and .

Academic and Scholarly Career

Professorship and Teaching

Jonathan Turley joined the faculty of in 1990 following a brief appointment at Tulane University Law School. In 1998, at the age of 38, he was appointed the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro of Public Interest Law, marking him as the youngest chaired professor in the institution's history at that time. This endowed chair reflects his focus on , encompassing constitutional issues, , and environmental enforcement. As a tenured , Turley has taught core and advanced courses in areas such as torts, , and legal theory, drawing on his expertise in these fields. Specific offerings include LAW 6206 (Torts) and LAW 6376 (Prisoners Project), a practical addressing and related constitutional challenges. His teaching emphasizes first-hand application of legal principles, often incorporating real-world cases from his consulting and work to illustrate doctrinal applications in constitutional and contexts. Turley's pedagogical approach has been noted for integrating scholarly research with analysis, fostering student engagement through clinics and projects that simulate professional legal practice. He continues to serve full-time at GW Law, where his courses attract students interested in and , contributing to the school's reputation in public interest . Jonathan Turley has produced extensive legal scholarship, including more than three dozen peer-reviewed articles published in leading law journals such as the Cornell Law Review, Duke Law Journal, Georgetown Law Journal, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, and Northwestern University Law Review. His academic work spans , tort law, , , , and military law, often emphasizing first principles of , individual rights, and institutional accountability. Among his books, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage (, 2024) analyzes the historical development of the First Amendment alongside contemporary erosions of free speech protections amid rising and . Turley argues that free speech remains essential for democratic self-correction, drawing on cases from the Sedition Act of 1798 to modern campus censorship and moderation. He has also authored Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished , which critiques rhetorical excesses in American political discourse and their impact on republican institutions. An earlier work, A Guide to Citizen Law Enforcement: Fighting at Facilities of the U.S. Department of Energy and Defense (1993), provides practical frameworks for addressing regulatory violations in federal operations. Turley's recent scholarship includes the article "Rage, Rhetoric, and the Revival of American " in the William & Mary Law Review (Vol. 65, No. 6, 2024), which examines how inflammatory language has historically tested laws and constitutional limits on speech, warning against expansive interpretations that could suppress dissent. His contributions frequently challenge prevailing academic consensus on issues like executive overreach and , prioritizing textualist and originalist interpretations supported by historical evidence over policy-driven expansions of authority.

Prominent Cases and Representation

Turley has represented clients in high-profile , whistleblower, and cases, often challenging government secrecy or overreach. His practice includes defense work in terrorism-related prosecutions, environmental exposure claims at classified facilities, and abuse allegations. In the litigation, Turley served as lead counsel for workers at the U.S. Air Force's secret Groom Lake facility in , who alleged exposure to hazardous chemicals and denied medical treatment in the 1990s. The case tested the invoked by the government to dismiss claims; the U.S. declined review in November 1998, upholding lower court dismissals. Turley also represented workers at the Rocky Flats nuclear facility in and nuclear couriers at , in suits over health risks from classified operations at Department of Energy sites. These cases involved claims of retaliation against whistleblowers reporting safety violations. In prosecutions, Turley defended , a former professor charged in 2003 with providing material support to . After a 2005 resulting in acquittals on eight counts and a on nine others, Al-Arian entered a deal; Turley and a [George Washington University](/page/George Washington University) litigation team secured dismissal of remaining charges by the Justice Department in June 2014. Turley represented NSA whistleblower David Murphee Faulk, who in 2008 disclosed warrantless surveillance abuses at the agency's Fort Gordon facility in Georgia, including interception of U.S. citizens' private communications abroad. Faulk's revelations contributed to public debate on post-9/11 surveillance programs. He has handled appeals for al-Timimi, convicted in 2005 on charges including soliciting and aiding enemies of the U.S. after urging followers to join the . Turley, appointed counsel in federal appeals, argued free speech violations and challenged conspiracy convictions under precedents like United States v. Davis (2019). Al-Timimi was released pending appeal in September 2020 after serving over 15 years. Turley defended protesters arrested during the in New York, contesting mass arrests and preemptive detentions as First Amendment violations. The cases highlighted tensions between security measures and civil rights amid post-9/11 protest policing.

Government and Policy Consulting

Turley has held advisory and consulting roles across branches of the U.S. federal government, including an internship in the general counsel's office of the during the Reagan administration. He has also worked in both houses of , contributing to positions in all three federal branches early in his career. In legislative consulting, Turley advised the on and constitutional policy matters. He similarly served as a consultant to the Puerto Rico House of Representatives during the 2007 impeachment proceedings against Governor , providing expertise on constitutional impeachment standards. On federal policy enforcement, Turley was selected in November 2014 as lead counsel for the U.S. in United States House of Representatives v. Burwell, challenging President Barack Obama's unilateral alterations to the , including implementation delays without congressional approval; the case resulted in a , 2016, ruling by U.S. District Rosemary M. Collyer declaring the actions unconstitutional. This role underscored his advisory function in defending legislative prerogatives against executive overreach.

Public Commentary and Media Presence

Writing and Opinion Columns

Jonathan Turley regularly contributes opinion columns to outlets including , , , and the , addressing constitutional issues, free speech protections, government overreach, and legal controversies. His writings emphasize first-principles interpretations of the , often critiquing both partisan extremes for eroding institutional norms and individual rights. Turley maintains a personal , Res Ipsa Loquitur, where he archives and expands on these columns, drawing from his expertise as a constitutional scholar to analyze current events with historical and legal context. In , Turley has authored dozens of pieces as an opinion contributor, frequently focusing on threats to free speech from and corporate . For instance, on September 8, 2025, he wrote "Will defend free speech? Meta is a welcome ally," praising Meta's policy shifts under while warning that yielding to demands for content suppression fosters endless escalation. Earlier, in October 3, 2024, his column "Vance is right: Walz is wrong about free speech" defended Senator JD Vance's debate critique of Tim Walz's record on First Amendment issues, arguing that the U.S. faces its most severe anti-free speech movement in history, evidenced by Democratic support for regulating "." Other contributions include a April 3, 2023, piece on ChatGPT's false accusation of him committing , highlighting AI's unreliability and potential for without accountability. Turley's Washington Post op-eds have centered on impeachment processes and executive power limits. On January 21, 2020, he published "Where the Trump defense goes too far," cautioning that while the House's case against President Trump lacked evidence of , absolute claims of unlimited presidential authority risked undermining constitutional checks. His GWU faculty page lists additional Post pieces, such as a 2010 critiquing faith-based defenses in cases, arguing courts should not exempt believers from accountability for preventable deaths. For , Turley has written on structural threats to American governance, including a September 25, 2025, column titled "Elites call the 'broken'... Americans know it's our greatest gift," rejecting progressive calls to overhaul the founding document amid policy frustrations, instead advocating fidelity to its original design for resolving disputes. In the , he contributes of media and academic biases, such as critiques of institutional in handling controversies. Across these platforms, Turley's columns consistently prioritize empirical legal over partisan , often citing specific cases, statutes, and historical precedents to substantiate claims of bipartisan institutional failures.

Television and Public Appearances


Jonathan Turley regularly appears on Fox News as a contributor, offering legal analysis on programs including Hannity, The Ingraham Angle, Special Report, and Fox & Friends. His commentary frequently addresses constitutional issues, executive authority, and ongoing legal controversies, such as indictments and press freedom concerns. Turley has made over two dozen appearances on prominent Sunday talk shows, such as , ABC This Week, , and . He has also provided analysis on MSNBC, including multiple guest spots on in episodes aired on March 29, 2007, and August 21, 2009. Additionally, he has appeared on programs like Anderson Cooper 360° and Smerconish, discussing topics including Russia investigations and impeachment standards. Beyond cable news, Turley serves as a legal analyst for NBC and CBS News, a role he has held since the early 1990s. His public appearances extend to C-SPAN interviews and discussions on platforms like Q&A, where he elaborates on free speech history and political polarization. These engagements underscore his role in bridging academic expertise with public discourse on legal and constitutional matters.

Congressional Testimony

Testimonies on Constitutional Issues

Jonathan Turley has testified before congressional committees on constitutional matters concerning , including executive non-enforcement of laws and unauthorized military engagements. In a December 3, 2013, hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on the president's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws, Turley argued that Article II, Section 3's Take Care Clause requires presidents to enforce statutes equally without unilateral suspension or amendment, absent a finding of unconstitutionality. He criticized actions such as the Obama administration's 2012 program, which deferred deportation for approximately 1.76 million individuals, and delays in mandates, as exceeding prosecutorial discretion and amounting to an unconstitutional "dispensing power" that undermines congressional authority. Turley extended similar critiques to President George W. Bush's use of over 125 signing statements with more than 800 constitutional objections, warning that such practices erode the Madisonian balance of powers and risk an "uber-presidency." On war powers, Turley testified on June 6, 2018, before the Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management, asserting that Article I, Section 8 vests with exclusive authority over declarations of and military funding, making unauthorized executive engagements a violation of core constitutional duties. He opposed the 2015 Corker-Kaine Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution as an unconstitutional delegation of war-making power, noting its allowance for post-hoc presidential notifications rather than prior affirmative votes by majorities in both chambers, and its lack of a , which could perpetuate indefinite conflicts. Turley emphasized that war powers represent not only a constitutional but a "moral responsibility" for to reclaim from executive drift. Turley has also addressed Congress on powers and remedies for executive non-compliance. In a May 15, 2019, written statement to the House Judiciary Committee, he affirmed Congress's inherent Article I authority to conduct oversight and issue subpoenas when tied to a valid legislative purpose, as established in cases like McGrain v. Daugherty (), but stressed the need to demonstrate pertinence and avoid overbroad demands that courts might quash. He cautioned that pursuing contempt citations without strong evidentiary ties risks adverse judicial precedents and advised balancing claims through litigation rather than premature escalation. In testimonies on free speech, Turley warned of government-orchestrated censorship infringing First Amendment rights. On May 11, 2023, before a House Homeland Security subcommittee, he detailed how federal agencies like the (CISA) and FBI collaborated with platforms such as and to suppress domestic dissent on topics including policies and elections, often via private surrogates to evade direct constitutional liability. Citing the and litigation like Missouri v. Biden, Turley argued that such coordination—flagging millions of posts and influencing removals—transforms private actors into state agents under precedents like Marsh v. Alabama (1946), chilling debate and potentially costing lives by delaying evidence-based discourse on public health measures. He highlighted CISA's expansion from foreign threats to domestic "" as a threat to designations like elections, urging to scrutinize these systems for viewpoint discrimination. Turley testified as an before the House Judiciary Committee on November 9, 1998, during the inquiry into President , focusing on the constitutional standards for impeachable offenses. In his testimony, he argued that while does not strictly require violation of criminal statutes, the offenses must constitute serious equivalent to "," and Clinton's alleged and obstruction warranted scrutiny under this threshold due to their impact on the . He emphasized procedural fairness, noting that should avoid partisan rushes and ensure a robust evidentiary record, drawing parallels to historical impeachments like those of . Over two decades later, Turley appeared again before the House Judiciary Committee on December 4, 2019, as the sole witness invited by Republicans in the first inquiry against , concerning allegations of and obstruction related to aid and the 2016 election investigation. In his , he contended that the evidence presented was "facially insufficient" for , lacking direct witness testimony from key figures like and relying heavily on , which he argued undermined the constitutional imperative for a high bar of proof in such proceedings. Turley criticized the inquiry's compressed timeline—spanning roughly two months—as setting a dangerous precedent for future , urging the House to pursue court enforcement of subpoenas for additional evidence rather than proceeding hastily, and stating, "This is not how you impeach an American president." He acknowledged the Trump-Zelensky call transcript raised concerns but maintained it did not clearly meet the impeachable offense standard without fuller context, while distancing his analysis from personal political views on Trump. Turley did not testify in the second impeachment inquiry against Trump in early 2021, which centered on incitement of insurrection following the Capitol events; instead, he critiqued it publicly as procedurally flawed and constitutionally questionable, arguing in opinion pieces that it deviated from traditional standards by targeting post-office conduct and lacked sufficient deliberation. His consistent emphasis across testimonies has been on evidentiary rigor and deliberate process to preserve impeachment's gravity as a rare constitutional remedy, rather than a routine political tool. Following the 2019 testimony, Turley reported receiving threats, highlighting the polarized reception of his non-partisan stance.

Constitutional and Political Positions

Views on Executive Authority and Impeachments

Jonathan Turley has consistently critiqued the expansion of presidential authority, warning of an "imperial presidency" where unchecked executive power undermines the constitutional designed by the framers to prevent tyranny and protect individual liberties. In a analysis, he highlighted how presidents, particularly under , have unilaterally asserted authority in areas like warrantless surveillance affecting all U.S. citizens, bypassing on military actions such as the Libya intervention, claiming the right to target U.S. citizens without , and prosecuting whistleblowers at double the rate of all prior administrations combined. Turley attributes this trend to congressional acquiescence and judicial passivity, arguing that no branch should govern alone and that such concentration erodes democratic checks. While acknowledging the need for a robust executive to address national challenges, Turley maintains that presidential power must remain bounded by law, criticizing overreaches like expansive claims of that obstruct investigations. He has defended certain uses of , such as Donald Trump's proposed actions on birthright citizenship and federal worker buyouts, as within the president's constitutional wheelhouse to prompt judicial clarification, but only when they do not infringe core legislative prerogatives. Turley advocates waiving in cases like the Mueller investigation to promote transparency, viewing it as a tool for accountability rather than absolute shield. Regarding impeachments as a key check on executive authority, Turley argues that the Constitution's "" clause permits removal for non-criminal abuses of power but demands a high evidentiary threshold to avoid partisan weaponization. He testified before in the 1998 , cautioning against lowering standards that could invite cycles of retribution, a position he reiterated in subsequent inquiries. In his December 4, 2019, testimony during the over the matter, Turley asserted that the presented evidence failed to prove a or clear abuse, labeling the rushed process a "slipshod " that risked future "madness" by prioritizing motives over facts and forgoing court-compelled witnesses. For Trump's second impeachment in January 2021 following the Capitol events, Turley opposed proceedings as damaging to constitutional norms, arguing that "reckless rhetoric" does not meet the incitement standard for and that impeaching a president-elect or post-tenure figure raises unresolved constitutional issues while bypassing . He has applied the same rigorous criteria to other inquiries, such as the 2023 probe into , emphasizing that must target egregious, provable misconduct rather than policy disagreements to preserve its role as an extraordinary remedy. Turley's framework prioritizes and procedural fairness to prevent impeachments from becoming routine political tools, thereby safeguarding executive legitimacy.

Positions on Free Speech and Censorship

Jonathan Turley has positioned himself as a staunch defender of the First Amendment, emphasizing that free speech serves both functional and dignitary purposes in sustaining democratic discourse and individual autonomy. In his 2024 book The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, Turley argues that the faces an escalating "age of rage" characterized by mounting efforts from government officials, platforms, and academic institutions, which undermine the foundational promise of unrestricted expression. He contends that while some limits on speech, such as to imminent violence, are constitutionally permissible, the prevailing trend toward regulation and suppression of disfavored views—often justified under pretexts like combating "" or ""—represents a profound threat to core liberties. Turley has repeatedly testified before on the mechanics of modern , highlighting what he describes as a "censorship industrial complex" involving government agencies, nonprofits, and tech firms. In a , 2023, hearing before the House Judiciary Committee's Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, he warned that expansive speech restrictions, including those proposed for online content, erode First Amendment protections without sufficient justification, advocating opposition to most forms of criminalization or platform regulation beyond narrow exceptions. During a May 11, 2023, House Homeland Security Committee session, Turley detailed how federal involvement in flagging content for removal—such as through the Global Engagement Center (GEC)—crosses into unconstitutional coercion when it effectively directs private companies to suppress speech. He has cited the revelations as evidence of systemic government pressure on platforms to censor narratives on topics like origins and the 2020 Hunter Biden laptop story, framing this as the "greatest loss of free speech in American history." In his March 25, 2025, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the " Industrial Complex," Turley elaborated on the commercialization of suppression, noting how an industry has emerged to monetize through grants and contracts, with federal funding fueling algorithms and programs that prioritize removal of dissenting views. He criticized the Biden administration's approach, which he said integrated into policy via demands on platforms to throttle content deemed harmful, often without transparency or . Turley has advocated legislative remedies, including a proposed ban on federal funds supporting initiatives, to extricate the government from such practices entirely. Extending his critique to academia and media, he has argued that left-leaning intolerance drives calls for speech codes and , as seen in campus protests and editorial decisions that prioritize narrative control over open debate. Turley's writings reinforce these positions, portraying moderation as a vector for hegemonic control when influenced by state actors. In a September 8, 2025, column, he praised Meta's resistance to external demands as a model, warning that yielding to such pressures fosters an "insatiable appetite" for further curtailment. He has specifically opposed framing "" as grounds for , viewing it as a subjective label that enables arbitrary suppression rather than counterspeech. Overall, Turley maintains that free speech's promise lies in its tolerance of rage and error, urging a return to first-principles fidelity to the amid institutional biases that favor restriction.

Critiques of Bipartisan Overreach

Jonathan Turley has consistently critiqued the bipartisan expansion of the administrative state, which he describes as a "fourth branch of government" that undermines the constitutional separation of powers through unchecked bureaucratic authority. In a 2013 Washington Post opinion piece, Turley argued that Congress, across multiple administrations and party majorities, has delegated vast legislative powers to federal agencies, allowing unelected officials to issue regulations with the force of law, often without adequate oversight or accountability. This process, he contended, has resulted from decades of congressional acquiescence, enabling agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and others to wield influence rivaling that of the elected branches, a development facilitated by both Democratic and Republican lawmakers seeking to avoid political accountability for controversial policies. Turley extended this analysis to executive overreach, emphasizing that while specific actions under presidents like —such as unilateral changes to immigration enforcement and the —warranted scrutiny, the underlying imbalance stemmed from bipartisan congressional failures to assert Article I authority. In congressional testimony and writings, he has highlighted how both parties have contributed to this erosion, with Republicans under expanding executive powers through measures like the , which he criticized in 2004 Senate testimony for insufficient safeguards against civil liberties abuses in programs. Turley noted in 2013 that members of from both parties remained silent on prior misleading testimony regarding surveillance overreach, illustrating a shared reluctance to challenge entrenched executive practices. In advocating for reform, Turley has called for bipartisan efforts to restore legislative primacy, arguing in a 2014 Washington Post column that must reclaim its constitutional role to prevent further degradation of checks and balances, a problem exacerbated by both parties' preference for short-term political gains over institutional integrity. He has testified that such overreach persists because neither party consistently opposes expansions of government power when in control, as seen in recurring FISA renewals and administrative that bypass traditional legislative processes. This critique underscores Turley's view that true constitutional fidelity requires vigilance against consensus-driven encroachments, regardless of partisan affiliation.

Controversies and Criticisms

Accusations of Bias and Partisanship

Turley has faced accusations of Republican partisanship primarily from left-leaning media outlets and Democratic lawmakers, particularly following his December 4, 2019, testimony before the House Judiciary Committee during the first impeachment inquiry against President . In that testimony, Turley argued that the impeachment process was rushed and that the evidence presented did not meet the constitutional threshold for or obstruction, describing it as "the thinnest of all impeachments" while criticizing Trump's call as "anything but perfect." Critics, including a opinion piece, labeled this a "flip-flop" from his support for the impeachment process against President [Bill Clinton](/page/Bill Clinton) in 1998, despite Turley's clarification that he had opposed Clinton's conviction on grounds. Such outlets as and Washington Monthly have portrayed Turley as having shifted from earlier criticisms of Trump—such as his 2015 condemnation of the proposed Muslim travel ban as unconstitutional—to serving as an "academically-credentialed propagandist" for Republicans, especially after his repeated defenses of Trump in columns and appearances. A 2023 Washington Post column accused Turley of offering a "deceptive" interpretation of Trump's Georgia election interference call by claiming it sought a recount rather than outcome reversal. These criticisms often highlight his representation of Republican figures, including Speaker in a 2014 lawsuit against executive actions by President , as evidence of inherent bias despite Turley's history of testifying for Democrats and voting for and . Media bias rating organizations have classified Turley's blog and podcast as right-leaning or hyper-partisan right, citing frequent critiques of Democratic policies and defenses of Trump-related legal positions as indicators of ideological slant. Commentators in left-leaning forums, such as Quora responses, dismiss Turley as a "non-MAGA right-winger" whose analyses selectively tolerate falsehoods from conservative leaders. These accusations frequently emanate from sources with documented left-wing editorial biases, which may amplify perceptions of Turley's non-partisan constitutional scholarship—such as his critiques of bipartisan overreach in both parties—as undue favoritism toward Republicans.

Responses and Defenses

Turley has consistently defended his public positions and testimonies as grounded in constitutional interpretation rather than partisan loyalty. During his December 4, 2019, appearance before the House Judiciary Committee on the of President , he testified that "my personal and political views of President Trump...are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony," stressing the need for evidence approximating a criminal offense to avoid purely political impeachments, a standard he applied similarly to the 1998 impeachment of President . He argued that rushing impeachment without such evidence undermines the process's legitimacy, a view he reiterated in critiquing snap proceedings against Trump in 2021. In response to claims of rightward bias, Turley highlights his self-identification as a civil libertarian with a record of opposing overreaches by both parties, including Bush-era policies on executive power and , as well as early advocacy for recognition predating widespread Democratic support. He has publicly stated that he "previously criticized both Democrats and Republicans" on issues like congressional disruptions, framing his analyses as principle-driven rather than aligned with Republican interests. For example, in his September 28, 2023, testimony on the inquiry into President , Turley cautioned Republicans that "the current evidence would [not] support articles of ," urging further investigation to avoid mirroring Democratic procedural flaws in prior inquiries. Turley attributes some accusations of conservatism to shifts in political discourse, noting in a July 2024 op-ed that services like label him as such despite his longstanding focus, which now conflicts with prevailing institutional views on and speech. He defends balanced application of free speech principles by advocating protection for both conservative groups like and left-leaning figures opposing certain events, as in a October 20, 2025, column arguing campuses must uphold neutrality amid ideological pressures. In media critiques, he counters narratives of his own bias by pointing to systemic distrust in outlets that prioritize emotional responses over factual reporting, as in his November 10, 2024, analysis of post-election coverage.

Awards and Recognition

Honors and Professional Accolades

Turley serves as the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of at , a chaired position he received in 1998 as the youngest such professor in the institution's . He has also been recognized as the second most cited professor in the United States and ranked 38th among the top 100 public intellectuals in a study by Judge . In 2005, Turley was awarded Columnist of the Year for single-issue advocacy by the and The Week magazine for his columns on . Three years later, in 2008, John Marshall Law School conferred upon him an honorary Doctorate of for his contributions to and public interest . Turley received the Dr. Mary Ann Quaranta Elder Justice Award from in 2011 for his efforts with the Project for Older Prisoners, alongside recognition as an Irish Legal 100 honoree for legal accomplishments and commitment to Irish-American causes. In 2013, his legal , Res Ipsa Loquitur, was inducted into the ABA Journal's Blawg Hall of Fame following multiple prior awards for legal blogging. In 2019, presented Turley with its Award for contributions to constitutional scholarship. More recently, in 2024, The Washingtonian named him among the most influential individuals in , for shaping policy through legal analysis. He has further been ranked among the top 10 lawyers handling military cases nationally.

Personal Life

Family and Interests

Turley eloped with his wife, Leslie, in , , on January 1, 1998. The couple resides in and has children, as Turley has publicly referenced "my kids" in a 2019 congressional . Specific details about the number or names of their children remain private, with no verified public disclosures from primary sources. Turley's interests encompass outdoor pursuits, including and ; in August 2025, he described a day of such activities with Leslie near . He maintains a on his personal website, documenting trips such as explorations in , Utah, emphasizing natural beauty and recreational experiences. Turley also owns at least one , which he alluded to with lighthearted exasperation during the same 2019 testimony, stating, "Even my dog seems mad."

Swatting Incident and Security Threats

On December 29, 2023, Jonathan Turley became the victim of a hoax at his home in , when an anonymous caller falsely reported to 911 that an individual had been shot inside the residence. Local , including Fairfax County Police, responded to the fabricated , confirming no actual threat existed after securing the scene. Turley confirmed the incident on , describing it as "regrettably a manifestation of our age of rage" and noting it followed a of similar attacks on public figures amid political tensions. Swatting, defined as a hoax emergency call intended to provoke a heavy police response including teams, carries criminal penalties; Turley highlighted that enacted legislation in 2023 classifying it as a punishable by up to five years in prison and fines up to $2,500. No arrests were publicly linked to Turley's case as of late 2023, though federal investigations into coordinated swatting campaigns targeting conservatives, including judges and lawmakers, were underway around the same period. Beyond the swatting, Turley has faced other security threats tied to his public commentary. Following his December 4, 2019, testimony as a witness in the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiry against then-President —where he argued the process lacked evidence of —Turley reported his home and office being "inundated with threatening messages" starting that day. He attributed the volume of threats to partisan backlash, stating they included demands for his from and personal , though no specific perpetrators were identified in contemporaneous reports. These incidents underscore recurring risks for legal scholars engaging in high-profile political , with Turley emphasizing and threats as forms of rather than legitimate discourse.

References

  1. https://www.law.gwu.edu/jonathan-turley
  2. https://jonathanturley.org/about/
  3. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/house-to-move-on-articles-of-impeachment-after-hearing-from-scholars
  4. https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/108974/witnesses/HHRG-116-JU10-Bio-TurleyJ-20190228.pdf
  5. https://www.amazon.com/Indispensable-Right-Free-Speech-Rage-ebook/dp/B0CL5GHDF3
  6. https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Turley.Testimony.Biden-Inquiry.pdf
  7. https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/05/opinions/turley-impeachment-flip-flop-avlon
  8. https://www.geni.com/people/Jonathan-Turley/6000000114111682116
  9. https://playback.fm/person/jonathan-turley
  10. https://chicago.suntimes.com/obituaries/2025/07/19/angela-piazza-turley-social-worker-activist-fair-housing-uptown-dies-97
  11. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2005/02/21/john-jack-turley-79/
  12. https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/chicagotribune/name/john-turley-obituary?id=2415442
  13. https://jonathanturley.org/2025/08/02/the-extraordinary-life-of-a-girl-called-champ/
  14. https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/5430235-the-extraordinary-life-of-a-girl-called-champ/
  15. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/10/24/chicago-cubs-world-series-billy-goat-curse-jonathan-turley/92673350/
  16. https://praxiscircle.com/leader/jonathan-turley/
  17. https://www.missouriwestern.edu/convocation/wp-content/uploads/sites/88/2022/07/Jonathan-Turley-Biography.pdf
  18. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20210224/111229/HHRG-117-IF16-Bio-TurleyJ-20210224.pdf
  19. https://www2.gwu.edu/~media/pressreleases/turleysh.html
  20. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU08/20250507/118207/HHRG-119-JU08-Bio-TurleyJ-20250507.pdf
  21. https://www.coursicle.com/gwu/professors/Jonathan%2BTurley/
  22. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Indispensable-Right/Jonathan-Turley/9781668047040
  23. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/18/books/review/the-indispensable-right-jonathan-turley.html
  24. https://www.amazon.com/Books-Jonathan-Turley/s?rh=n%253A283155%252Cp_27%253AJonathan%2BTurley
  25. https://www.law.gwu.edu/turley-jonathan
  26. https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/trump-impeachment-witness-turley-once-represented-area-51-workers-1906940/
  27. https://www.law.gwu.edu/professor-turley-and-gw-litigation-team-win-al-arian-case
  28. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/20-4441
  29. https://irp.fas.org/ops/ci/king/ssci_turley.html
  30. https://jonathanturley.org/category/columns/
  31. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2025/09/08/facebook-x-free-speech-musk-zuckerberg-censorship/85973739007/
  32. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2024/10/03/vance-debate-harris-walz-first-amendment/75483782007/
  33. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2023/04/03/chatgpt-misinformation-bias-flaws-ai-chatbot/11571830002/
  34. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/21/where-trump-defense-goes-too-far/
  35. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/jonathan-turley-elites-call-constitution-broken-americans-know-its-our-greatest-gift
  36. https://nypost.com/author/jonathan-turley/
  37. https://www.foxnews.com/person/t/jonathan-turley
  38. https://www.foxnews.com/video/6382883456112
  39. https://www.foxnews.com/video/6374261597112
  40. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna17874115
  41. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32539126
  42. https://www.law.gwu.edu/professor-turley-cnn-transcript
  43. https://www.law.gwu.edu/professor-turley-cnn-transcript-0
  44. https://mn2s.com/booking-agency/talent-roster/jonathan-turley/
  45. https://www.c-span.org/person/jonathan-turley/18953/
  46. https://www.congress.gov/113/chrg/CHRG-113hhrg85762/CHRG-113hhrg85762.pdf
  47. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115shrg33954/html/CHRG-115shrg33954.htm
  48. https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/109481/witnesses/HHRG-116-JU00-Wstate-TurleyP-20190515.pdf
  49. https://homeland.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023-05-11-OIA-HRG-Testimony-Turley.pdf
  50. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc3/pdf/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc3-20.pdf
  51. https://www.businessinsider.com/republican-witness-jonathan-turley-contradicted-impeachment-testimony-2019-12
  52. https://www.congress.gov/event/116th-congress/house-event/110281
  53. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-jonathan-turleys-full-opening-statement-in-the-trump-impeachment-hearing
  54. https://www.npr.org/2019/12/05/784994918/jonathan-turley-on-his-impeachment-testimony
  55. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6547-jonathan-turley-s-opening-stat/739d3374f20a9ed69157/optimized/full.pdf
  56. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/533469-swift-second-impeachment-would-damage-the-constitution/
  57. https://www.law.gwu.edu/i-testified-against-trumps-impeachment-lets-not-pretend-it-didnt-happen
  58. https://www.law.gwu.edu/anti-impeachment-witness-says-hes-received-threats-judiciary-committee-hearing
  59. https://www.legion.org/information-center/news/magazine/2014/may/a-question-of-power-the-imperial-presidency
  60. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20160622/105095/HHRG-114-JU00-Wstate-TurleyJ-20160622.pdf
  61. https://www.law.gwu.edu/trump-plan-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-will-force-courts-act-thats-good
  62. https://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/posts/jonathan-turley-slammed-a-federal-judge-for-blocking-a-buyout-offer-to-federal-w/1026292126027316/
  63. https://www.law.gwu.edu/jonathan-turley-constitutionality-trump-impeachment-%2525E2%252580%252598very-interesting-and-unresolved-issue%2525E2%252580%252599
  64. https://www.aei.org/op-eds/the-indispensable-right-review-why-we-need-free-speech/
  65. https://www.colgate.edu/news/stories/jonathan-turley-advocates-free-speech-age-rage
  66. https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115294/witnesses/HHRG-118-FD00-Wstate-TurleyP-20230209.pdf
  67. https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/turley-testimony.pdf
  68. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2025-03-25_testimony_turley_final.pdf
  69. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/jonathan-turley-get-us-out-censorship-business-once-all-2025
  70. https://www.jns.org/professor-jonathan-turley-liberals-oppose-free-speech/
  71. https://www.facebook.com/constitutionctr/videos/law-professor-jonathan-turley-talks-about-the-issue-of-using-the-term-disinforma/473591788540592/
  72. https://highlandcountypress.com/opinions/jonathan-turley-struggle-and-promise-free-speech
  73. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/post/jonathan-turley-makes-the-case-for-more-emphatic-defense-of-free-speech-in-age-of-rage/
  74. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-rise-of-the-fourth-branch-of-government/2013/05/24/c7faaad0-c2ed-11e2-9fe2-6ee52d0eb7c1_story.html
  75. https://www.heritage.org/article/testimony-executive-overreach-domestic-affairs-part-i-health-care-and-immigration
  76. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/turley_testimony_09_13_04.pdf
  77. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/restore-balancing-among-the-branches-of-government-in-washington/2014/06/27/81440022-f49d-11e3-b633-0de077c9f768_story.html
  78. https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116211/witnesses/HHRG-118-JU08-Wstate-TurleyJ-20230714.pdf
  79. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trumps-conduct-takes-center-stage-at-impeachment-hearing
  80. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/11/what-happened-to-jonathan-turley-really.html
  81. https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/12/05/what-the-heck-happened-to-jonathan-turley/
  82. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/25/turley-foxnews-trump/
  83. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/jonathanturley-org-bias/
  84. https://adfontesmedia.com/turley-talks-bias-and-reliability/
  85. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/jonathan-turley-media-bias
  86. https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-response-to-legal-scholar-Jonathan-Turleys-claim-that-the-left-has-always-maintained-a-high-degree-of-tolerance-for-false-claims-by-its-own-leaders
  87. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-116hhrg38933/html/CHRG-116hhrg38933.htm
  88. https://jonathanturley.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Testimony.Turley.House_.Judiciary.Executive-Privilege.Final_.pdf
  89. https://x.com/JonathanTurley/status/1896913780979970412
  90. https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/4795501-newsguard-censorship-conservative-speech/
  91. https://jonathanturley.org/2025/10/20/why-we-must-protect-both-turning-point-and-mark-bray/
  92. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/jonathan-turley-ignore-tears-rage-objective-media
  93. https://www.law.gwu.edu/turley-and-murphy-are-2011-irish-legal-100-honorees
  94. https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/blawg_hall_of_fame/P2
  95. https://jonathanturley.org/2019/04/11/turley-to-receive-james-madison-award-at-uvu/
  96. https://x.com/JonathanTurley/status/1874427576460128440
  97. https://www.facebook.com/time/videos/jonathan-turley-my-wife-is-mad-my-kids-are-mad-even-my-dog-seems-mad/1479690082188566/
  98. https://x.com/JonathanTurley/status/1956695047841214587
  99. https://jonathanturley.org/category/travel-blog/
  100. https://nypost.com/2023/12/29/news/legal-scholar-jonathan-turley-becomes-latest-swatting-victim/
  101. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4382323-turley-reportedly-latest-target-of-swatting-spree/
  102. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/dec/30/swatting-hits-law-professor-jonathan-turley/
  103. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/what-swatting-criminal-harassment-hoax-thats-hit-3-gop-lawmakers-since-christmas
  104. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/473387-turley-home-office-inundated-with-threatening-messages-since-impeachment/
  105. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/dec/6/jonathan-turley-gop-witness-says-hes-received-thre/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.