Turley’s Bio
Jonathan Turley is an American lawyer, legal scholar, writer, legal analyst, and pundit. He has testified in congressional procedures, including Presidents Bill Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s removal trials and impeachment hearings. He is a lecturer at George Washington University Law School. As a supporter of the First Amendment, Turley regularly writes about restrictions on free speech in both the public and private spheres. The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage is his book.
How old is Turley?
Turley is 64 years old as of 6 May 2025. He was born on 6 May 1961 in Chicago, Illinois, United States.
Turley’s Parents and Siblings
Turley, the youngest of five children, was raised in a politically engaged[by whom?] Chicago family. In addition to being a partner at Skidmore, Owens, and Merrill, his father, John (Jack) Turley, was an international architect and a former colleague of renowned modernist architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Turley has written about how his father shaped his ideas about the constitution. Angela Piazza Turley, his mother, was an activist and social worker who served as president of the Jane Addams Hull-House in Chicago. He has Italian and Irish origins.
Is Turley’s married?
In 1997, Turley wed Leslie, his wife. They are parents of four kids.
What is Turley’s reputation?
Throughout his political career, Robert Turley has been an outspoken supporter of a number of causes, such as the legalization of polygamy, the Supreme Court’s role in partisan politics, and José Padilla’s treatment as a terrorist suspect. Additionally, he has voiced his strong opposition to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, arguing that it eliminates habeas corpus. Turley has also criticized the death penalty, claiming that dealing with bullies is a normal part of learning and that it represents a fundamental shift in American society.
Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, who has been consistently cited as a top contender for the Court by libertarian presidential candidates, named Turley as one of his two top picks for the Supreme Court post in 2016. He has written extensively against the death penalty, pointing out that one of the main reasons for botched executions is still human error and that lawsuits could be successful in making schools take bullying more seriously.
Turley has also written extensively against the death penalty, pointing out that one of the main reasons for botched executions is still human error and that lawsuits may be successful in making schools take bullying more seriously. In his many pieces criticizing the death sentence, he points out that “human error remains a principal cause of botched executions.”
Following the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Turley made the case that citizens ought to applaud the courts’ efforts to verify and examine the election’s outcomes. He consented to represent the Republican Party and House Speaker John Boehner in a lawsuit against the Obama administration that claimed the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate was illegal. The Obama Administration was found to have breached the separation of powers in 2016 when it ordered the payment of billions to insurance firms without a congressional appropriation.
Turley has frequently testified in national issues and has advocated against exceptions to fundamental constitutional rights based on national security. He provided testimony at Attorney General William Barr’s, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch’s, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s confirmation hearings. Additionally, he provided testimony in support of Clinton’s impeachment throughout the hearings.
Turley was lead counsel in a litigation contesting President George W. Bush’s warrantless domestic monitoring program and has testified against it in Congress. He pointed out that there are no hereditary rulers in America and that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor had criticized the government for a blatant violation of the Constitution with reference to warrantless wiretaps.
Turley argued against the impeachment of then-President Donald Trump in a December 4, 2019, testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on the constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment. He took issue with the attempt to write articles of impeachment based on four criminal charges: campaign finance crimes, bribery, extortion, and obstruction of justice. In the end, the Committee rejected all four of those articles and accepted the two—abuse of power and obstruction of Congress—that Turley claimed might be valid if demonstrated.
In the Trump impeachment, Turley allegedly changed his stance on the requirement of a crime for impeachment after rejecting it in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. He denied that a prerequisite offense was required for either impeachment, Turley noted, and Democratic members of the Clinton impeachment actually used his stance to support their argument for impeachment in both the Trump impeachment hearing and trial.
In conclusion, the author talks on Turley’s involvement in the Trump administration and his experiences with impeachment. He contends that the House’s impeachment strategy is predicated on a limited definition of crimes that can lead to impeachment, which he feels is too expansive for the White House. In their arguments before the Senate in the Trump impeachment trial, the White House and House managers both cited Turley, who argued against the White House’s claim that a criminal allegation is necessary for impeachment.
During Trump’s second impeachment in January 2021, Turley’s opinions were also mentioned on the House floor, including his resistance to a “snap impeachment.” He disagreed with the decision to forgo a hearing in order to think through the ramifications of such a swift impeachment, alter the wording, and give Trump a chance to respond formally. Turley opposed the challenge by pro-Trump Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives to the electoral votes that determined the election in favor of Joe Biden and denounced Trump’s tweet prior to the incident.
Turley said in August 2024 that the Biden-Harris government had attacked free expression by supporting blacklisting efforts and implementing a vast filtering apparatus to muzzle critics. Comparing the 2024 US presidential election to the 1800 US presidential election, he claimed that free speech was the most important issue and characterized Tim Walz as one of the most ardent proponents of censorship and blacklisting systems.
Turley vehemently disagreed with Trump Administration border affairs advisor Tom Homan’s proposal in February 2025 that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could face criminal charges for hosting a webinar for illegal migrants called “Know Your Rights” if it turned out the webinar had hampered federal law enforcement officials’ efforts. Homan’s remarks, he argued, were a “baseless threat” and would violate the right to free speech.