LaMonica McIver

New Jersey Rep. LaMonica McIver is facing federal felony charges for allegedly interfering with federal officers during a 2025 congressional visit to an ICE facility.

Her lawyers argue the prosecution is politically motivated by the Trump administration and that she should be protected by congressional immunity.

Prosecutors claim McIver used her forearms to impede the arrest of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, an act they say is not covered by immunity.

If convicted on all charges, the first-term Democrat could face up to 17 years in prison.

Lawyers representing a New Jersey congresswoman facing federal felony charges brought by the Trump administration argued to a panel of appellate court judges in Wilmington on June 24 that her prosecution is politically motivated, otherwise unlawful and should be dismissed.

Last year, federal prosecutors charged Rep. LaMonica McIver, a first-term Democrat, with two federal felonies for "assaulting, resisting, impeding and interfering with federal officers” during a scrum outside a controversial Immigrations and Customs Enforcement detention facility, known as Delaney Hall in Newark, New Jersey.

Prosecutors accuse her of using her forearms against federal agents to impede the arrest of Newark Mayor Rus Bakara right outside the facility. A federal judge in New Jersey previously rejected her bid to throw out the charges.

Attorneys appealing that decision argued inside the federal courthouse in Wilmington that the charges should be dismissed based on a constitutional provision that grants members of Congress immunity in the execution of their official duties and because they claim prosecutors under President Donald Trump are singling out McIver for her political beliefs.

If convicted of the two felonies and one misdemeanor charge, McIver faces the potential of 17 years in prison. Outside the courthouse, she told reporters that Trump is weaponizing the Justice Department against leaders who criticize him and that she, personally, is scared.

"I have, literally, the president of the United States and the Department of Justice trying to send me to jail for 17 years," she said. "That is very frightening."

What to know about the charges against LaMonica McIver

The charges stem from a congressional oversight visit by McIver to Delaney Hall with Reps. Rob Menendez and Bonnie Watson Coleman in May 2025. Members of Congress have the authority to inspect such facilities without prior notice.

The 1,000-capacity Delaney Hall has faced ongoing protests, with some turning into clashes with police as recently as this June. Advocates and watchdog groups have pointed to what detainees describe as inhumane conditions, fueling labor and hunger strikes inside the facility. On June 2, New Jersey’s health commissioner sued the detention center's private operators, alleging they blocked inspectors from accessing key areas.

During the visit last in May, congressmembers were also joined by Baraka, whose municipal government office does not afford him the same inspection rights as members of Congress. He was allowed to wait on the facility grounds while the members of Congress waited to conduct their visit inside.

However, agents eventually moved to arrest him and were acting on orders from acting United States Attorney General Todd Blanche, her attorneys have said in court. This prompted the members of Congress to go outside and attempt to shield the mayor in what became a scrum involving the federal officials, their staffers, federal agents and protesters.

After the incident, the members of Congress took an hourlong tour of the facility. Baraka was initially charged with trespass, but those charges were quickly dropped.

However, McIver was charged by then-interim U.S. Attorney Alina Habba for the District of New Jersey and formerly a lawyer for President Donald Trump. The criminal indictment accuses McIver of assaulting and impeding the federal agents, claiming she "slammed her forearms" into officers in an attempt to shield Bakara and then to reenter the facility.

Congressional immunity?

McIver quickly moved to have the indictment dismissed on grounds that it was the result of selective and vindictive prosecution that targeted her for her criticisms of the federal government's mass deportation and detention agenda.

She also argued that the charges should be dismissed based on immunity granted to government officials exercising their oversight duties. In November, Judge Jamel Semper in New Jersey rejected those arguments.

In doing so, Semper carved out a 68-second period in which McIver became involved in Bakara's arrest as separate from her legally protected, congressionally authorized investigation of the facility.

The June 24 arguments in Wilmington largely centered on whether legal precedent justified Semper carving out those 68 seconds. Paul Fishman, McIver's attorney, argued that the scrum over Bakara's arrest was part of her conducting her oversight duties and protected by Speech and Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Stephanos Bibas invited Fishman to consider a hypothetical where a member of Congress gropes a teenager during a congressional oversight visit. Fishman said such an extraordinary act would not be covered. He argued that precedence demands the question of immunity not just turn on the act, but also its context.

"If any member of Congress walks into a bar, sees an ICE agent and decks them, that isn’t covered," Fishman said.

Drawing a distinction, Fishman sought to couple the scrum to the overall investigation visit. He emphasized that federal agents had improperly delayed the inspection and then provoked the members of Congress by illegally and irresponsibly arresting Bakara. Her reaction was part of her legislative duties, he argued.

"Their motive and purpose was not to impair the arrest," he told the court. "Their motive was to do oversight."

Federal prosecutors argued why she was there is irrelevant and that impairing arrest isn't a protected "legislative act."

"Use of physical force is never, never, covered by Speech and Debate Clause," argued Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Coyne.

Judge Thomas Ambro asked Coyne to point to a case where federal prosecutors charged anyone with the same crime for a similar level of contact on a federal officer. Coyne said federal prosecutors recently charged someone for throwing an umbrella at a federal officer and noted the McIver prosecution is "not a typical case."

"Charging a sitting member of Congress is a very consequential act that certainly my office didn't take lightly," Coyne told Ambro.

Political prosecution?

McIver's attorneys also argued that the Trump administration is unconstitutionally and selectively targeting her based on her politics. They compared her prosecution to the blanket dismissals and pardons granted to Jan. 6 defendants who carried out far more violent actions against law enforcement than any possible construing of McIver's actions.

"What they did in Delaney Hall and what they are doing in District Court in Newark is the same thing: They are picking on someone who is a congresswoman who doesn't share their views," Fishman told the court.

The lower court rejected this claim by ruling the Jan. 6 defendants were not legally analogous comparisons. Prosecutors spent most of their time on June 24 arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal of that decision ahead of trial.

Because a convicted defendant may raise a vindictive prosecution claim on appeal, it is not subject to the appeals court jurisdiction ahead of trial, Coyne told the judges. Fishman said this would be an appropriate time for the court to hear that appeal without dragging his client through trial.

"We are already here," Fishman said.

Later, Ambro presented Coyne with a hypothetical in which an authority doesn't care if a defendant is actually convicted, but seeing them go through the personal and financial pressure is enough for that authority to get its "pound of flesh."

"You have to go through all that and then have an appeal assuming you lose?" Ambro asked.

Coyne answered that the issue is not in the appeals court jurisdiction until after trial.

The court reserved judgement on the appeal.

Outside court, McIver said the process has been "exhausting" and "stressful" stating she has been raising money to fight the case while taxpayer dollars are used to prosecute her for doing her oversight duties.

"The point of it all is cruelty," she said. "The process is the pain for them and they enjoy that."

Contact Xerxes Wilson at (302) 324-2787 or [email protected].