Docket Nexus — Federal court records.

Reply to Response to [36] Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Filed by the House Committee on Education and Workforce, Tim Walberg. (Berry, Matthew)

Document #50 Filed 07/24/2026 · 21 pages · District Court, D. Massachusetts · View original PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS MICHEL DEGRAFF, Plaintiff,

v.

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF

TECHNOLOGY, et al.,

Defendants. Case No. 1:26-cv-11488-ADB Leave to File Granted on July 8, 2026 CONGRESSIONAL DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS MATTHEW B. BERRY General Counsel TODD B. TATELMAN Deputy General Counsel ANDY T. WANG Associate General Counsel ALICIA GARTEN Assistant General Counsel OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 5140 O’Neill House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-9700 (telephone) [email protected] Counsel for Congressional Defendants

July 24, 2026

i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 2

I.

The Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Count I ............................................... 2 A.

The Speech or Debate Clause Bars Count I ............................................................ 2 B.

Plaintiff Has Not Established Standing................................................................... 7 C.

Congressional Defendants Are Necessary Parties Under Rule 19, and Count I Must Be Dismissed .................................................................................. 11 II.

Count I Fails To State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted............................... 13 A.

Plaintiff Does Not Plausibly Allege Coercion ...................................................... 13 B.

MIT Is Not a State Actor ...................................................................................... 14

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 15 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Page(s)

Alexis v. McDonald’s Rest. of Mass., Inc.,

67 F.3d 341 (1st Cir. 1995) ......................................................................................................15 Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons v. Schiff,

518 F. Supp. 3d 505 (D.D.C. 2021), aff’d, 23 F.4th 1028 (D.C. Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................................2 Bragg v. Jordan,

669 F. Supp. 3d 257 (S.D.N.Y. 2023), appeal dismissed sub nom. Bragg v. Pomerantz, No. 23-615, 2023 WL 4612976 (2d Cir. Apr. 24, 2023) .........................4 Budowich v. Pelosi,

610 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2022) .............................................................................................14 Caldwell v. Cambra,

802 F. Supp. 3d 8 (D. Mass. 2025) ............................................................................................4 Dantzler Inc. v. Empresas Berríos Inventory & Operations, Inc.,

958 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2020) ......................................................................................................10 Doe v. McMillan,

412 U.S. 306 (1973) ...................................................................................................................2 Downing v. Globe Direct LLC,

806 F. Supp. 2d 461 (D. Mass. 2011), aff’d, 682 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................12, 13 Duggan v. Martorello,

596 F. Supp. 3d 195 (D. Mass. 2022) ......................................................................................11 Dunbar v. Weinberger,

412 F. Supp. 454 (D. Mass. 1974) .............................................................................................7 Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen’s Fund,

421 U.S. 491 (1975) ...........................................................................................................2, 4, 5 Ericson v. Conagra Foods, Inc.,

No. 20-cv-11022, 2020 WL 6912105 (D. Mass. Nov. 24, 2020) ............................................11

iii

Fakhreddine v. Univ. of Pennsylvania,

No. 24-cv-1034, 2025 WL 345089 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 30, 2025) ...................................................14 Fluent v. Salamanca Indian Lease Auth.,

928 F.2d 542 (2d Cir. 1991).....................................................................................................12 Gravel v. United States,

408 U.S. 606 (1972) ...................................................................................................................5 Hentoff v. Ichord,

318 F. Supp. 1175 (D.D.C. 1970) ..........................................................................................5, 6 Hutchison v. Proxmire,

443 U.S. 111 (1979) ...............................................................................................................3, 5 Khalil v. Trs. Of Columbia Univ. in N.Y.C.,

No. 25-cv-2079, 2025 WL 1019425 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025) ..................................................6 Khalil v. Trs. of Columbia Univ. in N.Y.C.,

No. 25-cv-2079, 2026 WL 775813 (S.D.N.Y. March 19, 2026) .............................2, 3, 4, 6, 12 Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Aftermath Servs. LLC,

No. 22-cv-11052, 2023 WL 5435878 (D. Mass. Aug. 23, 2023) ............................................14 Maine Med. Ctr. v. United States,

675 F.3d 110 (1st Cir. 2012) ....................................................................................................10 Martin v. Evans,

241 F. Supp. 3d 276 (D. Mass. 2017) ....................................................................................7, 8 McGrain v. Daugherty,

273 U.S. 135 (1927) ...................................................................................................................4 Meese v. Keene,

481 U.S. 465 (1987) ...................................................................................................................8 Petitti v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co.,

No. 89-3951, 1992 WL 359643 (D. Mass. Nov. 16, 1992) .......................................................7 Preterm, Inc. v. Dukakis,

591 F.2d 121 (1st Cir. 1979) ......................................................................................................7

iv

Pujol v. Shearson Am. Exp., Inc.,

877 F.2d 132 (1st Cir. 1989) ....................................................................................................12 Rangel v. Boehner,

785 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2015) .....................................................................................................5 Tampa Bay Students for a Democratic Soc’y v. Rhea Law,

No. 25-cv-02752, 2026 WL 979964 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 10, 2026)................................................8 TargetSmart Holdings, LLC v. GHP Advisors, LLC,

366 F. Supp. 3d 195 (D. Mass. 2019) ......................................................................................11 Watkins v. United States,

354 U.S. 178 (1957) ...................................................................................................................2 Wichita & Affiliated Tribes of Okla. v. Hodel,

788 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1986) .................................................................................................13 Willitts v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.,

No. 18-cv-11908, 2021 WL 735784 (D. Mass. Feb. 25, 2021) .............................................4, 9 Other Authorities Todd Garvey, Cong. Rsch. Serv., R45043,

Understanding the Speech or Debate Clause (2017) ................................................................7

Read the full filing

You’re reading pages 1–5 of 21. Register free to read the complete 21-page transcript on this page.

Register free to continue reading →

These are public U.S. federal court records, available free from PACER and the court. Registration unlocks our full on-page transcript — a convenience service.

advertisement

Public U.S. federal court record (district court docket 73109164, document 50). Source via the RECAP Archive (Free Law Project). The same record is available from PACER. Informational only — not legal advice.