UA Judicial Review Board upholds Ellis’s removal as UA representative
Ellis’s informal appointment prevented him from claiming protections for removal of “officers, chairs, and representatives”
On Jan. 9, 2026, the MIT Undergraduate Association (UA) Judicial Review Board published its final opinion unanimously, upholding Enoch Ellis ’26’s removal as the UA representative for the Student Groups Funding Council (SGFC).
Background of the conflict
In Fall 2025, internal miscommunication between UA Treasurer George Obongo ’27 and UA President Alice Hall ’26 resulted in Ellis gaining authorization to use UA funding for almost $300 worth of coffee chats. As a result, at the UA Council meeting held on Dec. 3, 2025, all ten representatives present passed a motion to remove Ellis as the UA representative for the SGFC and to allow Alice to appoint a replacement nominee.
The next day, Ellis submitted a complaint to the UA Judicial Review Board challenging his removal, citing constitutional voting thresholds and due-process requirements. He requested the Board prohibit the UA Council from enforcing the Dec. 3 removal vote and amend the records of the Dec. 3 meeting regarding the alleged improper use of funds.
Despite the pending decision, Hall sent out an email on Dec. 9 asking students to apply to be the replacement representative of the UA to the SGFC for the 2025–2026 academic year. On Dec. 16, 2025, oral arguments were scheduled; those in attendance included Ellis, two appointed UA Council members, and Hall.
Per UA Constitution Article II(C)(6)(a), the Board has the power to reverse votes in violation of the “Constitution and other governing documents.” It is on this basis that the Board could take action regarding Ellis’s removal.
UA Judicial Review Board’s final decision
In their final decision, the UA Judicial Review Board upheld Ellis’s removal as the UA representative and co-chair for the SGFC and denied Ellis’s request for a temporary injunction. They also established that the Board did not have the authority to issue binding rulings on UA Council records.
The Board acknowledged they did not have the authority to compel the SGFC to take action regarding Ellis’s position as the co-chair. However, they argued the UA can determine “who is authorized to represent it.”
Ellis requested an injunction for three reasons: to prohibit the UA Council from replacing him, to halt the UA from publicly stating that he is no longer the UA SGFC representative, and to stop the UA from initiating new removal votes.
Initially, the Board did not issue a temporary injunction on replacement because it was unclear if a new representative would be appointed before a decision was made.
Soon after, the UA elected Keegan Brady ’28 as the new UA SGFC representative. According to Hall, since SGFC members do most of their work for the spring semester during IAP, it was critical to elect a new representative as soon as possible. Brady was chosen specifically for prior experience in student government roles such as RingComm and Maseeh Hall’s judicial board, as well as his demonstrated ability to adapt to areas of the position “outside of his direct prior experience.”
Later, the board issued a temporary injunction against the final appointment of the new representative. However, further consideration led the Board to revoke the injunction as they had determined Ellis’s removal did not violate the UA Constitution or other governing documents.
Since the Board determined the second reason to be a matter of free speech and the third beyond its constitutional authority, an injunction was not issued for these reasons.
Citing the recent creation of the SGFC, the Board lacked a clear framework for the appointment and removal of the UA representative. Attempts to agree on a framework failed. However, the Board agreed that since Ellis’s appointment as the UA representative was informal in the beginning, he could not claim protections for removal of “officers, chairs, and representatives.”
Lastly, the Board wrote that it did not have the authority under Article II(C)(6)(a) to issue binding rulings on what UA Council Records contain.
UA Council reactions
Hall is glad the UA Judicial Review Board’s ruling “protected the power” of the UA Council in matters like these. Currently, Hall is working with SGFC and MIT Student Organizations, Leadership & Engagement (SOLE) on the new SGFC Constitution to clearly define how the UA should handle UA SGFC representatives in the future. She hopes these changes will make rulings regarding SGFC representatives clearer and more “standardized” in the future.
Hall also mentioned the formation of a general coalition within the UA to parse through and “bolster the clarity” of major UA documents.
The SGFC decision on Ellis’s position
Nathan Collett, the graduate student chair of the SGFC, stated that the SGFC acknowledges that the UA council has removed Ellis and appointed a new representative.
Collett stated that following group discussions in the coming days, the SGFC will take action regarding Ellis’s status as a co-chair. Currently, the SGFC is facing one of its busiest weeks in the year with concurrent onboarding processes.
As a result, Collett mentioned that action will be taken at the earliest possible opportunity that does not impinge on the SGFC’s core function of serving MIT student groups.
Ellis did not respond to The Tech’s request for comment by the time of publication.