At the annual Constitution Day lecture on Sep. 16, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Judges Stephanos Bibas and Arianna J. Freeman ’01 visited Swarthmore to share some memorable cases and experiences during their career alongside their insights on jurisprudence.
The event took place at the Lang Performing Arts Center Cinema and consisted of a panel discussion moderated by Associate Professor of Philosophy Krista Thomason along with a Q&A session. It was made possible by the William J. Cooper Foundation and the department of political science, with support from the philosophy, history, sociology and anthropology, interpretation theory departments, the Pre-Law Office, and the Lang Center for Civic and Social Responsibility.
Both judges shared how their life experiences have impacted their pursuits and perspectives on law.
Judge Freeman’s educational journey began here at Swarthmore, where she graduated as a member of the class of 2001. Later one, she received her J.D. at Yale Law School. She was appointed in 2022 by President Joe Biden, becoming the first Black woman to serve on the Third Circuit.
Freeman’s career is deeply rooted in public defense, as she spent her early career working as a managing attorney for the Federal Community Defender Office in Philadelphia. There, she focused on post-conviction appeal litigation for indigent clients — particularly death row inmates — and was a strong advocate for criminal justice reform. Freeman discussed how her background in public defense shapes her approach as a judge, and referenced how her appointment was part of a larger Biden-Harris Administration push to appoint more federal judges with backgrounds in public defense.
Judge Bibas comes from a different legal background. Receiving his undergraduate degree at Columbia University, he went on to study at Oxford University and Yale Law School. Before joining the bench, Bibas was a professor of law and criminology at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where he directed the school’s Supreme Court Clinic.
Bibas is renowned for his scholarship in criminal procedure — particularly his critiques of the plea bargaining system. Having clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and serving as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, his judicial philosophy leans toward originalism as he focuses on the Constitution’s text and historical context in his work, emphasizing legal formalism and the moral dimensions of the law.
The panel began with a recount of their journey to become judges. Bibas mentioned his passion for debate back in college, which drove him to study litigation in law school: “Among the very best debaters that I debated against were Swarthmore debaters in parliamentary debates,” he mentioned. He also cautioned against going into law school without passion.
“Don’t drift into law school … There are a lot of ways to get a view of the law up close before you decide to take the plunge,” Bibas said. “I encourage you to be thoughtful about that and get a better sense of what you’re getting yourself into. Don’t go just to make your mom and dad happy.”
Throughout the years, Bibas has worked as a lawyer, prosecutor, and professor before being appointed by President Donald Trump to serve as a circuit court judge in 2017. The nomination came as a surprise to Bibas: “It really did feel like it fell into my lap more than anything. I was not politically active. I was not donating or working on a bunch of campaigns or anything. But I still pinch myself. I can’t believe it’s been six years.”
Freeman, on the other hand, has worked prior as a Federal Public Defender for years, a position rarely tapped for judgeships. When retracing her education, she specially addressed two courses at Swarthmore that were foundational to her career choice: Law, the Political Process, and Civil Rights Policy — taught by Peyton McCrary, a visiting professor and historian — and Constitutional Law — taught by Richter Professor Emerita of Political Science Carol Nackenoff.
“I think it is probably quite unusual for a small liberal arts college to have a constitutional law course, but it is a great opportunity to gain some exposure to theories of law at this stage of your education,” Freeman said.
Freeman also mentioned the general impact of Swarthmore on developing critical thinking skills through challenging ideas in and outside of the classroom.
“I was always invited to challenge ideas in classes and really think about the topics that were discussed with classmates. What’s interesting was that a lot of these conversations happened in places like student dorms or Sharples. Everyday conversations like these with my peers really inspired me.”
The judges were asked to share personal experiences from their work, including their career highlights before becoming judges and the complex cases they encountered.
Bibas talked about his early years in advocacy: “I was blessed that at Penn I was directing this Supreme Court Clinic where I was litigating as part of education and as public service, [a place where] some top students worked together, doing these pro-bono charity volunteer cases.”
He said working with and against great lawyers was the best preparation to write and argue for clients at high levels.
According to Bibas, the “coolest” case he worked on was Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. — one that revolved around the copyright of the renowned movie Raging Bull (Scorsese, 1980), where he pleaded for Petrella and encountered “a great lawyer on the other side.”
He also talked about his effort to retain objectivity as a judge when facing vicious cases such as those involving child pornography and rape. In the Q&A, Bibas expanded on the problem of objectivity:, “We’re human, and of course, [objectivity] is an ideal. But by working in three-judge panels, we necessarily avoid anything that is idiosyncratic to any of us, and the pressure towards unanimity or consensus encourages something that’s likely to be widely shared… Objectivity is an ideal. There’s no perfection on Earth. But it is something we strive towards in our process that helps us to get further along the path.”
Along the lines of remaining as objective as possible while encountering critique, Bibas clarified some details of Donald J. Trump for President v. Secretary Commonwealth of PA, a case in which he rejected the appeal from Trump’s side. After the decision, Bibas said there were personal attacks against him and his family from the public and media. After days and nights of hard work along with his staff, Bibas started the introduction in the court like this: “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
For Freeman, the highlight of her early years was representing incarcerated people, many of whom have spent years in state prisons. She said, “I was representing people where the stakes were really high because these were individuals’ lives that depended really on the outcome of this, whether they were going to die in prison or to be released.”
Freeman still remembers when one of her clients was ultimately released: “He was so grateful, and it was a very meaningful career that I had. And of course, I did not win all of my cases. But when you win, you win big. And it’s really important for the development of law and, of course, for the individuals who are affected.”
The next part of the panel focused on each of their opinions on the U.S. Constitution and the current politically charged atmosphere.
“I wish people understood more how things look from our perspective,” Bibas said “My dad is an immigrant from Greece, and we take for granted what in most of the world is not taken for granted, which is that judges mean it when we swear to do justice to the poor as to the rich without fear or favor.”
Finally, the judges discussed how they work and collaborate with their colleagues. Freeman said she enjoys the process of decision-making and working together as a court to speak with one voice, which she says benefits the attorneys and parties impacted.
“But when it is not possible to avoid an issue, I think the role of dissent is to speak to what you hope the future of the law will be. Even in a precedential opinion where two judges have reached a majority on an issue, if I feel in my conscience and in my head that it is wrong, and I need to say that, in the hope that someday the law may change, …, then I will say that, for the record and for the future,” Freeman said.