Bobulinski v. Goldman, Civil Action No. 2024-0974

Anthony Bobulinski sued Congressman Daniel Goldman for defamation, based on Goldman's social media statements about Bobulinski’s testimony and meetings before the House Oversight Committee.
The United States sought substitution as the defendant under the Westfall Act, certifying that Goldman was acting within the scope of his federal employment at the time of the statements.
The government moved to dismiss, invoking sovereign immunity from tort claims like defamation unless explicitly waived.
The central legal dispute was whether Goldman's conduct fell within the scope of his employment as a federal official per D.C. law.
If so, the United States would be the proper defendant, and the suit would be barred by sovereign immunity; if not, Bobulinski could proceed against Goldman individually.
The court found Goldman’s statements were within his congressional duties, granted substitution of the United States, and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Bobulinski's Argument	Goldman's/United States' Argument	Held
Scope of Employment	Goldman's statements were personal, malicious, and outside official duties, especially since some were on a personal account and outside work hours.	Commenting publicly on committee matters and newsworthy events is central to congressional duties, regardless of account or time posted.	Goldman's statements were within the scope of employment.
Substitution & Immunity	Not appropriate because statements were not official acts; defamatory conduct cannot serve government interests.	Appropriate under Westfall Act; the conduct arose from his role as a Congressman, and sovereign immunity applies.	U.S. properly substituted; sovereign immunity bars the claim.
Use of Official vs. Personal Account	Use of a personal account and posting outside work hours shows conduct was private.	Members of Congress are "always on duty;" content, not account or hour, controls scope of employment.	Social media posts, regardless of account or time, were within scope.
Intent/Purpose	Allegations were meant to personally attack Bobulinski, not serve government.	Public communications by legislators may serve both personal and official purposes; informing constituents is sufficient official motive.	Some purpose to serve the government existed; standard is met.

Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225 (scope of employment and Westfall Act framework)
Wuterich v. Murtha, 562 F.3d 375 (scope of employment for members of Congress includes public comments)
Jacobs v. Vrobel, 724 F.3d 217 (scope of employment challenges; prima facie evidence via certification)
Council on Am. Islamic Relations v. Ballenger, 444 F.3d 659 (scope of congressional duties is broad for employment purposes)
Trump v. Carroll, 292 A.3d 220 (scope of employment standard in D.C. law)