Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver of New Jersey cannot invoke congressional immunity to escape prosecution on two charges stemming from her confrontation with federal immigration officers, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
The 2-1 decision from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit draws a clear distinction between a member of Congress conducting legitimate oversight and the physical conduct federal prosecutors allege occurred outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Newark.
The case dates to May 2025, when McIver joined other Democratic members of Congress for an unannounced oversight visit to Delaney Hall. Federal law gives lawmakers authority to inspect immigration detention facilities, placing McIver’s legitimate fact-finding activities within the scope of her congressional responsibilities.
But the situation changed when federal officers moved to arrest Newark Mayor Ras Baraka.
Prosecutors allege McIver physically interfered with officers during the confrontation, resulting in three criminal charges. McIver sought dismissal by arguing that her conduct was protected by the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, which shields lawmakers from prosecution for legitimate legislative acts.
🚨 BREAKING: A federal appeals court has rejected Rep. LaMonica McIver’s immunity defense in the Newark ICE case, 2-1.
McIver faces three federal charges over the alleged assault of ICE agents and up to 17 years in prison. 🔥 pic.twitter.com/cDKD0kwhhZ
— Patriots For Trump (@PatriotsFob900) August 26, 2026
The Third Circuit rejected that argument regarding two of the counts.
Judge Cindy Chung, appointed by former President Joe Biden, joined Judge Stephanos Bibas, appointed by President Donald Trump, in the majority. Judge Thomas Ambro, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, dissented.
The first count alleges McIver “slammed her forearm” into a federal officer while intervening during Baraka’s arrest.
According to the appellate majority, that alleged conduct cannot reasonably be considered part of McIver’s legislative responsibilities.
Her “alleged intervention into the Mayor’s questionable arrest had no cognizable connection to any legislative function,” the court concluded.
A second count alleges another physical encounter as McIver returned to the secured area of Delaney Hall. Prosecutors claim she used both forearms to strike an officer.
Again, the court found no constitutional legislative protection for the alleged action.
“Like the acts charged in Count One, the acts of pushing past and forcibly striking someone are unambiguously non-legislative: they are not integral to the legislative process,” the majority wrote.
“The charged conduct … is unambiguously non-legislative,” Chung wrote.
The ruling does not determine whether McIver actually committed the alleged acts. Prosecutors will still have to prove their case. What the appeals court decided is that congressional immunity cannot be used to prevent prosecution of those two counts.
The third charge received a different treatment. It accuses McIver of “forcibly” interfering with immigration officers but does not make sufficiently clear where the alleged conduct occurred. The appeals court sent that count back to the district court for additional review.
McIver responded defiantly, accusing the Trump administration of targeting its opponents.
The ruling “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,” she said.
“I will not fold to this administration. We are exploring every possible option.”
Those options could include requesting review by the full Third Circuit or asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case.
McIver had already encountered the same basic reasoning at the district-court level.
U.S. District Judge Jamel Semper, another Biden appointee, previously concluded that congressional oversight authority did not extend to physically interfering with an arrest.
“Impeding an arrest, whether lawful or unlawful, goes beyond any reasonable definition of oversight and, accordingly, exceeds the safe harbor of legislative immunity,” Semper wrote.
He emphasized that McIver’s subsequent inspection of the detention center was a different matter. Touring the facility and gathering information concerning federal immigration policy constituted protected congressional work.
The alleged confrontation with officers did not.
“Defendant’s active participation in the alleged conduct removes her acts from the safe harbor of mere oversight,” Semper wrote. “Lawfully or unlawfully, Defendant actively engaged in conduct unrelated to her oversight responsibilities and congressional duties.”
Semper summarized the distinction in particularly direct terms: “Defendant’s presence at Delaney Hall does not grant constitutional protection for every act performed in connection to that visit.”
Now a majority of the Third Circuit panel has reached essentially the same conclusion on two charges.
