Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver of New Jersey suffered another legal setback Wednesday when a federal appeals court ruled that congressional immunity does not protect her from prosecution over allegations that she forcibly interfered with federal immigration officers during a confrontation outside a Newark detention facility.
The case stems from a May 2025 visit by McIver and other Democratic lawmakers to Delaney Hall, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center. Members of Congress have statutory authority to conduct oversight visits at immigration detention facilities, but the confrontation that followed involved Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who did not have the same congressional status.
When federal officers moved to arrest Baraka, prosecutors allege McIver physically intervened.
🚨 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
That distinction — between conducting congressional oversight and physically interfering with officers — became central to Wednesday’s decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
In a 2-1 ruling, the three-judge panel rejected McIver’s attempt to invoke constitutional legislative immunity against two of the three charges she faces. The court sent a third count back to the lower court for additional consideration.
Judge Cindy Chung, appointed by former President Joe Biden, and Judge Stephanos Bibas, appointed by President Donald Trump, formed the majority. Judge Thomas Ambro, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, dissented.
One count alleges McIver “slammed her forearm” into a federal officer while intervening during Baraka’s arrest.
The appellate majority concluded that the alleged conduct had no sufficiently close connection to McIver’s legitimate legislative responsibilities to qualify for constitutional protection.
Her “alleged intervention into the Mayor’s questionable arrest had no cognizable connection to any legislative function,” the court concluded.
The second charge concerns another alleged physical confrontation as McIver moved back into a secured portion of Delaney Hall. Prosecutors accuse her of using both forearms to strike an officer.
Again, the majority found that the alleged actions were not legislative conduct.
“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 judges wrote.
“The charged conduct … is unambiguously non-legislative,” Chung wrote.
That does not amount to a finding that McIver is guilty of the underlying charges. Rather, the ruling addresses whether she can prevent those charges from proceeding by invoking constitutional protections afforded to lawmakers for legitimate legislative activity.
On two counts, the appeals court said she cannot.
The third count alleges that McIver “forcibly” interfered with immigration officers but does not specify the exact location of the alleged conduct. The appeals court returned that charge to the lower court for further review.
McIver can continue challenging the prosecution. Potential options include asking the entire Third Circuit to rehear the matter or seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
