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. In
USA Today in October 2004, he argued for the
legalization of polygamy, provoking responses from writers such as
Stanley Kurtz. In October 2006, in an interview by
Keith Olbermann of
MSNBC, he expressed strong disapproval of the
Military Commissions Act of 2006. 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." 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." 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." 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." 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". 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?" 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." 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. Turley has been repeatedly named as a top pick for the Court by libertarian presidential candidates, including in 2020. 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. 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.
Obama administration views 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." Turley described U.S. Attorney General
Eric Holder in an op-ed as President
Barack Obama's
sin-eater, writing: 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: 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. 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.
Testimony before Congress 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." He has argued against national security exceptions to fundamental
constitutional rights. He is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues, as well as
tort reform legislation. Attorney General
Loretta Lynch, and Attorney General
William Barr. He also testified during the
Clinton impeachment hearings. testified in favor of the Clinton impeachment. He was quoted extensively by congressman
James Rogan during the Clinton impeachment hearings. 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."
Views on Trump impeachments 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Turley was cited by both the White House and House managers in their arguments before the United States Senate in the Trump impeachment trial. During the trial, Turley opposed the White House argument that impeachment requires a criminal allegation. 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." After the
second impeachment of Donald Trump, he said there could not be
a trial after Trump left office. 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." 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. 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. He argued for a bipartisan, bicameral vote of censure to condemn Trump's words and actions leading up to the riot. but did speak to Republican senators before both the first Trump trial and the second Trump trial.
Biden administration views 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.
Trump administration views 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. Turley contended Homan's comments were a "baseless threat" and that such a move would be "an assault on free speech rights". ==Awards==