A federal appeals court on Wednesday rejected Rep. LaMonica McIver’s bid to dismiss assault charges, ruling that two of three counts against the New Jersey Democrat are not shielded by congressional immunity and may proceed to trial.
The three-judge U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed a lower court decision allowing prosecutors to proceed on the first two counts of McIver’s indictment, which accuse her of striking and grabbing federal agents outside Delaney Hall immigration detention center in Newark during a May 2025 confrontation. The court remanded the third count for further review, finding the lower court judge did not properly assess its claims. In a 49-page ruling, the majority found McIver’s physical contact with agents was “unambiguously non-legislative” and therefore not protected by the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, which shields lawmakers from prosecution for legislative acts.
The confrontation occurred on May 9, 2025, when McIver and two other members of Congress were conducting an oversight inspection of the facility. As federal agents moved to arrest Newark Mayor Ras Baraka during the visit, a melee erupted. Body camera footage from the episode shows McIver pushing agents during the scuffle. Federal prosecutors initially charged Baraka with trespassing but later dropped that charge while filing assault charges against McIver.
McIver has argued the Trump administration targeted her because she is a vocal critic of its immigration policies. A bipartisan group of former members of Congress filed an amicus brief urging the appeals court to dismiss her charges, arguing that her prosecution chilled congressional oversight authority. McIver’s attorney, Paul J. Fishman, contended that allowing the prosecution to proceed enables the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to “thwart members of Congress from inspecting an ICE detention facility, create chaos, and then prosecute those members.”
The panel’s composition underscored the case’s complexity. Two judges—one appointed by Donald Trump and one by Joe Biden—agreed that McIver is not shielded from prosecution on the second count. The third judge, appointed by Bill Clinton, dissented on that count, saying he would have returned it to the lower court for further review. All three agreed the third count required additional scrutiny.
McIver faces up to 17 years in prison if convicted. She has pleaded not guilty and is running for reelection in November. In a statement, she said “this is not over” and vowed to evaluate “all possible next steps,” including seeking en banc review by the full 3rd Circuit or appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. Her case has drawn scrutiny as part of a broader pattern of Trump administration prosecutions against political opponents, with critics arguing the charges represent selective enforcement. Related cases involving former FBI Director James Comey have similarly faced judicial skepticism.
The appeals court decision leaves McIver with limited options. If she pursues Supreme Court review, she would need to convince the justices that the case raises questions important enough to warrant their attention—a high bar. An en banc rehearing before the full 3rd Circuit, which has 17 judges, would require a majority to vote to reconsider the three-judge panel’s ruling.
Sources
- News From The States — the appeals court ruling, panel composition, and McIver’s statement
- Politico — judges’ struggle with McIver’s immunity claims and the extraordinary nature of the prosecution
- The New York Times — the underlying May 2025 incident and McIver’s involvement
- PBS NewsHour — Mayor Ras Baraka’s arrest during the confrontation
- Democracy Defenders Fund — bipartisan amicus brief supporting McIver’s immunity claims
