U.S. Rep. LaMonica McIver is Eight Months Pregnant and Facing 17 Years in Prison

A federal appeals court has ruled that criminal charges against Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., can largely move forward following a confrontation with federal immigration officers at a Newark detention facility. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision as to two counts against McIver while sending a third count back for additional consideration.

McIver faces three federal counts stemming from events at the Delaney Hall Federal Immigration Facility on May 9, 2025. She has denied wrongdoing and sought to have the indictment dismissed.

McIver and two other members of Congress had arrived at Delaney Hall for an unannounced congressional oversight inspection.

Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was also at the facility.

According to court records, federal authorities told Baraka he was not authorized to remain on the premises and warned that he could be arrested if he did not leave.

Photo Gallery: Country Star Ella Langley Makes History

🔥 Do you like Ella's music? Tap to see more 👇

After Baraka moved outside the security gate, federal agents were directed to arrest him. The congressional delegation then moved toward the area where officers and members of the crowd had gathered. Prosecutors allege McIver positioned herself between Baraka and an officer as agents attempted to make the arrest. The indictment alleges McIver “slammed her forearm into the body” of one federal officer and then attempted to restrain him by grabbing him.

Those allegations remain accusations and have not been proven at trial.

Prosecutors also accuse McIver of pushing past another officer and striking him with her forearms while returning toward the secured portion of the facility.

Baraka was ultimately arrested and charged with trespassing. The case against the mayor was later dropped.

Federal prosecutors subsequently charged McIver under a statute covering the assault, resistance, obstruction or interference with federal officers while they are performing their duties.

McIver challenged the prosecution on several constitutional grounds.

Among other arguments, she maintained that the Speech or Debate Clause protected her because she was carrying out congressional oversight duties.

She also raised separation-of-powers arguments and accused the government of selective and vindictive prosecution.

The district court rejected her efforts to dismiss the indictment, prompting the appeal.

The Third Circuit concluded that Counts One and Two could continue because prosecuting those charges would not require McIver to answer for protected legislative acts.

Count Three received different treatment.

Because that charge covered a broader range of alleged conduct, including actions occurring around the time of the congressional inspection, the appeals court directed the district court to take another look at whether protected legislative activity was implicated.

McIver criticized the ruling and said she was exploring her options.

“To protect the people, their elected representatives must be authorized to conduct oversight of the executive branch without fear of retaliation,” McIver said.

She argued that the decision could discourage members of Congress from exercising their oversight authority, add