Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-Newark) asked a federal appeals court Tuesday to dismiss the criminal case against her, arguing that prosecutors are attempting to criminalize congressional oversight and punish her for carrying out official legislative duties during a visit to an immigration detention facility in Newark last year.
Attorneys for the freshman Democratic congresswoman appeared before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit seeking reversal of a lower court ruling that allowed federal charges stemming from a May 2025 confrontation outside Delaney Hall, a privately operated immigration detention center.
McIver has maintained that her actions were protected by the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, which shields members of Congress from prosecution for conduct undertaken in the course of their legislative duties. Her lawyers argued that the visit to Delaney Hall was a legitimate oversight mission and warned that allowing the prosecution to proceed could have a chilling effect on congressional investigations of federal agencies.
Federal prosecutors contend that the case is not about oversight authority but about physical conduct during a chaotic encounter that occurred as federal agents attempted to arrest Newark Mayor Ras Baraka outside the facility. Baraka was seeking the Democratic nomination for governor at the time.
McIver was later indicted on charges alleging she impeded and interfered with federal officers during the incident. She has pleaded not guilty and repeatedly characterized the prosecution as politically motivated.
U.S. Appellate Court Judge Stephanos Bibas asked McIver’s attorney, former U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman, whether a Member of Congress would be protected if, as part of the legislative duties, “comes across a teenage girl and gropes her, “according to a CNN report.
Fishman told the court that they need to view the Delaney Hall visit as official oversight, and accused prosecutors of “picking on” McIver because she opposes the Trump administration on immigration issues.
The appeal follows a ruling by U.S. District Judge Jamel Semper, who declined to dismiss key portions of the indictment, finding that the alleged conduct described by prosecutors was not automatically protected by legislative immunity. McIver’s legal team appealed that decision, elevating the dispute to a case that could help define the boundaries between congressional oversight authority and criminal liability.
“The only way to square Congresswoman McIver’s indictment for assault with the dismissal of similar charges against January 6 defendants whose conduct was far more egregious is the most obvious explanation: the Administration embraces the political views of that group, but does not like hers,” the March 30 briefing stated. “A prosecution that turns on that distinction is unconstitutional.”
The congresswoman has attracted support from civil rights organizations, constitutional scholars, and former members of Congress who have filed briefs urging the appellate court to throw out the charges. Supporters argue that prosecuting lawmakers for actions connected to oversight visits risks undermining the ability of a Member of Congress to serve as a check on the executive branch.
A decision from the Third Circuit is expected in the coming months. The ruling could have implications far beyond McIver’s case, potentially shaping how courts interpret constitutional protections afforded to members of Congress during oversight activities.