Judge Warns of 'Vengefulness' Behind Democrat's ICE Prosecution, Court Allows Criminal Case to Proceed Amid Controversy

A federal appeals court has rejected New Jersey Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver's bid to dismiss criminal charges against her, ruling that her actions during a May 2025 oversight visit are not shielded by constitutional immunity.

On Wednesday, August 26, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 49-page ruling allowing the prosecution to proceed on two felony counts of assaulting and interfering with federal law enforcement officers.

The legal battle stems from a chaotic confrontation outside Delaney Hall, a contract Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Newark.

The court rejected McIver's argument that the Constitution's "Speech or Debate" clause grants her absolute immunity for actions taken during a legislative oversight visit.

McIver also tried to rely on the Supreme Court’s Trump immunity ruling to argue that lawmakers should receive similar protection for official acts, but the appeals court rejected that argument.

The decision was 2-1, with Judges Cindy Chung and Stephanos Bibas in the majority, while Judge Thomas L. Ambro dissented.

The panel affirmed a lower court's decision regarding Count One and Count Two, which accuse McIver of grabbing and striking federal agents.

The third count was sent back to the lower district court for further review.

On May 9, 2025, Rep. McIver and other House Democrats conducted an unannounced inspection of Delaney Hall.

Newark Mayor Ras Baraka accompanied the lawmakers but was ordered to leave and subsequently arrested for trespassing.

Federal prosecutors allege McIver physically intervened to block Baraka's arrest, shouting “h--- no,” slamming her forearm into a Homeland Security Investigations agent, and pushing an ICE officer.

The Department of Justice released body-worn camera footage showing McIver, identifiable in a red jacket, making physical contact with agents.

McIver has pleaded not guilty but faces up to 17 years in federal prison if convicted on all felony charges.

Appointed by the Trump administration, Interim U.S. Attorney Alina Habba brought the indictment. McIver and her attorney, former U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman, maintain that the prosecution is a politically motivated effort to intimidate lawmakers from conducting oversight.

In his dissent, Judge Ambro warned that retaliatory prosecutions jeopardize checks and balances, noting that McIver should be permitted to seek evidence of selective targeting. He warned of potential "vengefulness" and political retaliation behind the charges.

Representatives for McIver stated they are exploring all options, which may include asking the full 3rd Circuit bench to review the case or taking the immunity dispute to the Supreme Court of the United States.

“I fundamentally believe that the court got it wrong here. To protect the people, their elected representatives must be authorized to conduct oversight of the executive branch without fear of retaliation,” McIver said in a statement. “Today’s decision chills that authority and emboldens the Trump administration to continue persecuting our most vulnerable communities, those who try to defend them, and anyone who dares hold the president or his lackeys accountable.”