A divided federal appeals court ruled that Rep. LaMonica McIver’s alleged physical conduct during a 2025 congressional oversight visit to a Newark immigration detention facility was not protected legislative activity, allowing most of the criminal case against the New Jersey Democrat to proceed.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., cannot use the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause to shield herself from prosecution over an altercation with federal immigration officers during a congressional oversight visit to a Newark detention facility last year.
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit concluded that the physical conduct underlying the federal charges against McIver fell outside the constitutional protection afforded to members of Congress performing legitimate legislative functions.
“The charged conduct … is unambiguously non-legislative,” Judge Cindy Chung, an appointee of President Joe Biden, wrote for the majority, according to Politico.
Judge Stephanos Bibas, an appointee of President Donald Trump, joined Chung in the majority.
The decision represents another setback for McIver, who previously asked a federal district judge to dismiss the criminal case and was unsuccessful.
McIver faces three federal charges stemming from a May 2025 confrontation at Delaney Hall, an immigration detention facility in Newark. Federal prosecutors accuse her of forcibly impeding and interfering with federal law enforcement officers during an encounter that became physical.
McIver has pleaded not guilty.
The confrontation occurred while McIver and two other Democratic members of Congress were visiting Delaney Hall as part of an oversight effort involving immigration detention operations.
Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was also present.
According to the account cited by Politico, federal officers moved into a small crowd to arrest Baraka, who had joined the lawmakers during the visit. The situation then escalated into a physical confrontation.
McIver was subsequently accused of making physical contact with federal officers while they were performing their duties.
A federal grand jury returned a three-count indictment against her in June 2025, charging her with offenses involving the forcible impediment and interference of federal law enforcement personnel.
If convicted on all three counts, McIver could face a maximum combined sentence of 17 years in prison.
Her attorneys argued that the prosecution improperly targeted conduct connected to her congressional responsibilities and that the Speech or Debate Clause therefore protected her from criminal prosecution.
That constitutional provision protects lawmakers from being questioned elsewhere for legitimate legislative acts, preserving Congress’ independence from interference by the executive and judicial branches.
The Third Circuit majority, however, drew a distinction between McIver’s presence at the facility for a legislative oversight purpose and the specific physical conduct prosecutors allege occurred during the encounter.
“Rep. LaMonica McIver is not immune from prosecution for her contact with ICE officials during a heated scrum at New Jersey’s Delaney Hall detention facility, even though it occurred during a legislative investigation,” Politico reported in summarizing the decision.
The appeals court’s ruling leaves most of the government’s criminal case intact.
McIver has also argued that the charges are politically motivated.
She has pointed to public comments by Trump, his political allies and Alina Habba, the former federal prosecutor who brought the case. Habba previously served as Trump’s personal attorney and is now a White House aide.
The Third Circuit ruling does not resolve those allegations of selective or politically motivated prosecution. Its central holding concerns the narrower constitutional question of whether the conduct charged in the indictment qualifies as protected legislative activity under the Speech or Debate Clause.
The confrontation attracted national attention after video from the detention facility emerged.
ICE body-camera footage captured an angry exchange between McIver and federal officers during the incident.
At one point, McIver could be heard shouting, “I touch whoever I want motherf*cker!”
The footage also showed McIver arguing with federal personnel as tensions intensified around the effort to take Baraka into custody.
Prosecutors contend that her actions crossed the line from congressional oversight into unlawful interference with federal officers. McIver disputes the government’s characterization of the incident and has maintained her innocence.
Wednesday’s decision means she cannot defeat the bulk of the case on the theory that the Constitution categorically immunizes the alleged conduct because it occurred during an official congressional visit.
The criminal charges themselves remain allegations, and McIver has not been convicted of assaulting or interfering with federal officers.
With the Third Circuit rejecting her Speech or Debate Clause argument, the prosecution can continue unless McIver obtains further relief through additional appeals or other pretrial challenges.
Original article
Comments