“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
.
What’s at stake in this case?
A conservative professor claimed he was defamed by faculty members and the university because they criticized an article he wrote objecting to affirmative action
What happened in this case?
Dr. Norman Wang is a professor at the University of Pittsburgh medical school. He wrote an article that severely criticized race-based affirmative action in medical schools and hospitals. He maintained that other doctors falsely criticized his views and that he was improperly demoted, and filed suit in federal court. The district court dismissed his claims, either as a matter of law or on summary judgment, and he appealed to the Third Circuit.
Trump judges Stephanos Bibas and Peter Phipps, issued a July 2026 2-1decision in the case, Wang v University of Pittsburgh Obama Judge Patricia Shwartz dissented to eversing the dismissal of Wang’s defamation claims against the university, the hospital, and several others.
What was the rationale of Trump judges Bibas and Phipps?
Although acknowledging the difficulties of bringing defamation claims in the context of the “full contact sport” of ”academic debate,” Trump judge Bibas wrote that such claims were appropriate in this case. Bibas and Phipps maintained that in large measure, Wang had been accused of “misquoting and misreading data and sources” that are “falsifiable,” rendering them as “more hit job than academic argument” and subject to defamation.
Why did Judge Shwartz dissent?
Judge Shwartz strongly disagreed. Under established precedent, she explained, “one academic accusing another of “misreading” data is not actionable because it reflects an opinion about the other’s work based on disclosed facts,” which is “what happened here.” She criticized the majority for disregarding the accepted principle that courts should be “cautious” when weighing in on defamation claims in the context of academic debates because of the risk of “chill[ing] scientific progress and the rigorous discourse required to bring it about.” Judge Shwartz also explained in detail that in light of the fact that he was a “limited public figure,” Wang had failed to allege the “actual malice,” or knowing and reckless disregard of falsity, required by the First Amendment.
Why is the ruling harmful?
The ruling by Trump judges Bibas and Phipps obviously harms the University and other defendants by requiring them to litigate, and possibly pay damages, with respect to Wang’s defamation claims. The decision also sets a troubling precedent concerning defamation, particularly in the Third Circuit, which includes Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. In addition, it illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.