Skip to main content

Search

Search people, articles, bills, and more

JONATHAN TURLEY logo

JONATHAN TURLEY

jonathanturley.org

Local NewsProvenance not yet reviewed

2 stories credited to JONATHAN TURLEY

Latest story Nov 24, 2025 · on ChamberLight since Apr 2026

A story can appear as several articles (copies of the same piece), so counts of stories and of articles differ.

Compare with another source

Scores for JONATHAN TURLEY

Credibility

Not enough stories yet: 0 of 10.

How this is measured

Political lean

Not enough stories yet: 0 of 10.

How this is measured

Originality

Not enough stories yet: 2 of 10.

How this is measured

Scores last checked Sep 25, 2026.

Stories ChamberLight collected, by month

Stories credited to JONATHAN TURLEY, by publication date. ChamberLight collects articles that mention the officials it tracks, so this shows its own coverage of this source, not how much the source publishes.

  • Stories from JONATHAN TURLEY
  • Shaded: ChamberLight collected no stories, or almost none, from any outlet (a gap in its collection, not in the outlet’s publishing)
Show as a table
MonthStoriesAll outlets
November 2025238
December 2025027
January 2026087
February 20260180
March 202601,094
April 202604,538
May 20260none collected
June 20260none collected
July 20260none collected
August 202601 (collection gap)
September 202601,320

Top topics

Share of this source’s stories tagged with each topic. A story can carry several topics, so the shares do not add up to 100%.

  • Criminal Justice2

    100% of 2 stories · 19% across all outlets

  • Ethics/Corruption2

    100% of 2 stories · 58% across all outlets

  • Technology/Privacy1

    50% of 2 stories · 10% across all outlets

  • Voting Rights1

    50% of 2 stories · 19% across all outlets

The thin mark on each bar is the topic’s share across all outlets.

Who they cover

Party of the officials these stories are mainly about, across all 3 officials named. A story counts once for each official it is mainly about, so the split is over 3 story–official pairs, from 2 stories.

  • Republican67% · 2 pairs
  • Party not recorded33% · 1 pair

Most covered

Stories mainly about each official, and their share of the source’s 2 stories.

  1. 1Jamie Kaye Jordan–1 story · 50%
  2. 2Jim JordanR1 story · 50%
  3. 3Kevin McCarthyR1 story · 50%

Article tone

ChamberLight’s article analysis assigns each story a tone toward the official it covers. It describes the coverage of that official, not JONATHAN TURLEY’s stance, and reader votes do not change it. 2 stories.

Good Look
0 (0%)
Mixed
2 (100%)
Informational
0 (0%)
Bad Look
0 (0%)

Challenges to these scores

No one has challenged a score on this page yet. Anyone can; editors publish every outcome here.

Articles served from jonathanturley.org

3

The Selective Outrage of Judge James Boasberg

Below is my column in The Hill on two controversies involving Chief Judge James Boasberg this week in Washington, D.C. Both involve claims that branches undermined or intruded on the authority of another branch. However, these separation-of-powers conflicts produced strikingly different responses from Judge Boasberg. It seemed that the court’s concerns depended greatly on whose ox was being gored in a tripartite contest. Here is the column: For months, District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg has been very much in the news. This spring, he issued a 46-page decision finding that the Trump administration may be in contempt of court for violating his order to return flights of deportees being sent to El Salvador. In that ruling, Boasberg insisted that it was essential for him to know the facts on whether “officials of a coordinate branch” had undermined judicial integrity. After all, nothing short of the separation of powers was at stake. This week, Boasberg announced that he was moving forward without further delay to ferret out who was responsible for the alleged violation. That message, however, has now been undermined by another Judge James Boasberg, who is in the news this week as part of the controversy over the Justice Department’s acquisition of telephone records of leading Republican members of Congress. Boasberg had imposed a gag order on telephone companies to prevent them from informing Congress that the executive branch was snooping on who had been in contact with them. These two James Boasbergs seem as different as the two Jeffrey Epsteins referenced this week by Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) — one a presumably respectable medical doctor, the other a deceased sex offender. However, to use Crockett’s formulation, it was indeed “that James Boasberg” in both cases. The growing scandal over the seizure of telephone records of Republican members of Congress by former Special Counsel Jack Smith has continued to grow with new disclosures. This includes revelations that Smith obtained of records for former Speaker of the House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and House Judiciary Chair James Jordan (R-Ohio). It is difficult to overstate the gravity of this intrusion into the legislative branch. These records can reveal whom members spoke with and when such calls took place. It can reveal communications with journalists, whistleblowers, and others speaking confidentially with representatives. It can also reveal embarrassing information about members from their personal numbers. The gathering of such information without an obvious good cause can potentially deter members in confronting the Justice Department, which is notorious for leaking information against critics and targets. Ironically, such leaks are at the heart of investigations led by the very targets of these orders, including Jordan and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). It also included McCarthy, the person second in line for the presidency, who could ultimately assume authority over the Justice Department under the Constitution. The demand under Operation Arctic Frost was unprecedented in scope, with dozens of subpoenas going to such carriers as Verizon and AT&T. Nineteen such orders for these telephone records were accompanied by judicial nondisclosure orders for subpoenas signed by Boasberg. While commonly issued, these nondisclosures have long been controversial. It did not seem to matter that the Justice Department was targeting the very members exercising oversight over investigations into its own previous abusive use of investigatory powers. It is still not clear for what crimes these members were being investigated. The order on Jordan in 2022 covered two prior years. Not surprisingly, some Democratic apologists such as Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) immediately dismissed the gravity of such demands by the Justice Department. However, other Democrats have expressed alarm over the intrusion into such communications. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) stated, “On the surface of it, it would strike me as a significant invasion of the right of Senators to conduct their jobs, so this is something that needs urgent follow-up.” Indeed, the move by Judge Boasberg shattered the very rules of engagement between the coequal and “coordinate branches” that the same Boasberg has repeatedly raised in his investigation of the Trump administration. Boasberg signed these orders despite a federal law designed to prevent precisely this type of secret investigation of Congress. Federal law requires that “no law, rule, or regulation may be used to prevent a service provider from notifying a Senate office that data or records have been sought through legal process.” Just in case there was any doubt, the law further states that “any provider for a Senate office … shall not be barred, through operation of any court order or any statutory provision, from notifying the Senate office of any legal process seeking disclosure.” However, Boasberg signed orders that prevented the phone providers from informing members of Congress — members who were actively investigating abuses by the Justice Department — that they were now being subjected to precisely such investigations. There is little question how Congress would have responded. You are seeing it unfold this week. However, they were never told even as they objected to open-ended and abusive investigations of thousands of citizens after the January 6 Capitol riot. Boasberg was fully aware of those abuses, stretching back to the debunked Russiagate investigation, in which false information had been given to courts to carry out surveillance of Trump associates. Indeed, it was Boasberg again who ordered the resulting investigation into the false information given to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as part of the Russiagate investigation. He was criticized for appointing an attorney to assist him, David Kris, whom the Washington Post described as “highly controversial” given his past denials of any wrongdoing by the Justice Department. The wrongdoing was very real. An attorney at the FBI ultimately pleaded guilty to lying to the court in an effort to justify surveillance. Others were fired after Inspector General investigations exposed their abuse of investigatory powers. Despite that history, Boasberg gagged phone carriers from informing Congress of the seizure of the telephone records of key Republican members overseeing investigations of the Justice Department. I do not support the calls for Boasberg to be impeached, but his role in this scandal cannot be ignored. He not only enabled this abusive effort but also expressly told these companies not to reveal the demands to anyone. None of this means that there are no legitimate questions raised about the failure to comply with his orders on the El Salvador flight. But Boasberg’s separation-of-powers concerns seem strangely selective, depending on whose powers are being usurped. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of the bestselling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” He has also represented the House of Representatives in court.

Nov 24, 202518 votes

The Selective Outrage of Judge James Boasberg

Below is my column in The Hill on two controversies involving Chief Judge James Boasberg this week in Washington, D.C. Both involve claims that branches undermined or intruded on the authority of another branch. However, these separation-of-powers conflicts produced strikingly different responses from Judge Boasberg. It seemed that the court’s concerns depended greatly on whose ox was being gored in a tripartite contest. Here is the column: For months, District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg has been very much in the news. This spring, he issued a 46-page decision finding that the Trump administration may be in contempt of court for violating his order to return flights of deportees being sent to El Salvador. In that ruling, Boasberg insisted that it was essential for him to know the facts on whether “officials of a coordinate branch” had undermined judicial integrity. After all, nothing short of the separation of powers was at stake. This week, Boasberg announced that he was moving forward without further delay to ferret out who was responsible for the alleged violation. That message, however, has now been undermined by another Judge James Boasberg, who is in the news this week as part of the controversy over the Justice Department’s acquisition of telephone records of leading Republican members of Congress. Boasberg had imposed a gag order on telephone companies to prevent them from informing Congress that the executive branch was snooping on who had been in contact with them. These two James Boasbergs seem as different as the two Jeffrey Epsteins referenced this week by Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) — one a presumably respectable medical doctor, the other a deceased sex offender. However, to use Crockett’s formulation, it was indeed “that James Boasberg” in both cases. The growing scandal over the seizure of telephone records of Republican members of Congress by former Special Counsel Jack Smith has continued to grow with new disclosures. This includes revelations that Smith obtained of records for former Speaker of the House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and House Judiciary Chair James Jordan (R-Ohio). It is difficult to overstate the gravity of this intrusion into the legislative branch. These records can reveal whom members spoke with and when such calls took place. It can reveal communications with journalists, whistleblowers, and others speaking confidentially with representatives. It can also reveal embarrassing information about members from their personal numbers. The gathering of such information without an obvious good cause can potentially deter members in confronting the Justice Department, which is notorious for leaking information against critics and targets. Ironically, such leaks are at the heart of investigations led by the very targets of these orders, including Jordan and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). It also included McCarthy, the person second in line for the presidency, who could ultimately assume authority over the Justice Department under the Constitution. The demand under Operation Arctic Frost was unprecedented in scope, with dozens of subpoenas going to such carriers as Verizon and AT&T. Nineteen such orders for these telephone records were accompanied by judicial nondisclosure orders for subpoenas signed by Boasberg. While commonly issued, these nondisclosures have long been controversial. It did not seem to matter that the Justice Department was targeting the very members exercising oversight over investigations into its own previous abusive use of investigatory powers. It is still not clear for what crimes these members were being investigated. The order on Jordan in 2022 covered two prior years. Not surprisingly, some Democratic apologists such as Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) immediately dismissed the gravity of such demands by the Justice Department. However, other Democrats have expressed alarm over the intrusion into such communications. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) stated, “On the surface of it, it would strike me as a significant invasion of the right of Senators to conduct their jobs, so this is something that needs urgent follow-up.” Indeed, the move by Judge Boasberg shattered the very rules of engagement between the coequal and “coordinate branches” that the same Boasberg has repeatedly raised in his investigation of the Trump administration. Boasberg signed these orders despite a federal law designed to prevent precisely this type of secret investigation of Congress. Federal law requires that “no law, rule, or regulation may be used to prevent a service provider from notifying a Senate office that data or records have been sought through legal process.” Just in case there was any doubt, the law further states that “any provider for a Senate office … shall not be barred, through operation of any court order or any statutory provision, from notifying the Senate office of any legal process seeking disclosure.” However, Boasberg signed orders that prevented the phone providers from informing members of Congress — members who were actively investigating abuses by the Justice Department — that they were now being subjected to precisely such investigations. There is little question how Congress would have responded. You are seeing it unfold this week. However, they were never told even as they objected to open-ended and abusive investigations of thousands of citizens after the January 6 Capitol riot. Boasberg was fully aware of those abuses, stretching back to the debunked Russiagate investigation, in which false information had been given to courts to carry out surveillance of Trump associates. Indeed, it was Boasberg again who ordered the resulting investigation into the false information given to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as part of the Russiagate investigation. He was criticized for appointing an attorney to assist him, David Kris, whom the Washington Post described as “highly controversial” given his past denials of any wrongdoing by the Justice Department. The wrongdoing was very real. An attorney at the FBI ultimately pleaded guilty to lying to the court in an effort to justify surveillance. Others were fired after Inspector General investigations exposed their abuse of investigatory powers. Despite that history, Boasberg gagged phone carriers from informing Congress of the seizure of the telephone records of key Republican members overseeing investigations of the Justice Department. I do not support the calls for Boasberg to be impeached, but his role in this scandal cannot be ignored. He not only enabled this abusive effort but also expressly told these companies not to reveal the demands to anyone. None of this means that there are no legitimate questions raised about the failure to comply with his orders on the El Salvador flight. But Boasberg’s separation-of-powers concerns seem strangely selective, depending on whose powers are being usurped. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of the bestselling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” He has also represented the House of Representatives in court.

Nov 24, 202518 votes

Arctic Frost: Justice Department Obtained the Personal Phone Records of House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan

We have been discussing the deepening scandal over former Special Counsel Jack Smith securing the phone records of members of Congress, including former Speaker of the House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy. Now, Fox News is reporting that the Justice Department subpoenaed the personal phone records of House Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Jordan in 2022 for a two-year period. The report may be the most serious disclosure in the controversy, given the direct oversight exercised by Jordan’s committee over Smith and the Justice Department. Jordan has long been one of the most dogged investigators of abuse at the Justice Department and an outspoken critic of Smith. The subpoena ordered Verizon to hand over the phone data reaching back to Jan. 1, 2020. Notably, Smith did not begin work as special counsel for another seven months after the subpoena was issued. However, the prosecutor would later work with Smith on the investigation. The subpoena appears part of the Arctic Frost probe, which swept up the records of top Republican members in a move that many of us have criticized as an unwarranted and dangerous intrusion into the communications of the legislative branch. Despite the efforts of members like Rep. Dan Goldman (D, NY) to downplay the gravity of such demands, they represent a serious intrusion into the confidentiality of legislators’ communications, including the potential disclosure of journalists, whistleblowers, and others. The records show who Jordan communicated with and when those calls were made. Since this was a personal number, it could also reveal embarrassing information on a member who has directed oversight functions over the Justice Department. Other members have shown the institutional integrity and identification that others, such as Goldman, lack. Both Republican and Democratic members raised alarm over the disclosures. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) stated, “On the surface of it, it would strike me as a significant invasion of the right of Senators to conduct their jobs, so this is something that needs urgent follow-up.” The subpoena sought records for multiple phone numbers and included a one-year gag order signed by a D.C. magistrate judge. As someone who has worked closely with Congress for decades and represented the House in court, I regularly receive calls from both Democratic and Republican members. I keep these calls strictly confidential, and I am sure these members believe that they are not subject to such searches. Smith and the Justice Department shattered that belief. The demand for these records shows a reckless disregard for long-standing rules of engagement between the branches. It shows a sense of dangerous impunity at the Justice Department that should be thoroughly and aggressively investigated by Congress.

Nov 21, 202513 votes