House Democrat LaMonica McIver is using President Donald Trump’s own legal arguments to fight back against his administration’s vengeful prosecution.
The New Jersey lawmaker—indicted in June on charges that she “forcibly impeded” federal immigration officers outside a New Jersey detention facility—is asking a judge to dismiss the case. Her lawyers argue that the same Supreme Court ruling that granted Trump sweeping presidential immunity should apply to her as well.
In a motion filed Tuesday, McIver’s lawyers argued the indictment should be dismissed under “legislative immunity,” citing the 2024 decision that gave Trump absolute protection for his “official acts.” The justices didn’t define exactly what qualifies as an “official act,” instead sending the case back to lower courts to sort it out—a ruling her lawyers say opens the door for members of Congress to claim similar protections.
Congresswoman LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., exits the grounds of Newark’s Delaney Hall ICE detention facility on May 9.
“Putting Congresswoman McIver on trial for exercising her constitutionally and statutorily vested duties … would deter other Members from conducting legitimate oversight,” they wrote, according to Politico Playbook.
The case stems from a tense confrontation at Delaney Hall in Newark this past May. Video footage shows McIver being shoved by an ICE agent before she pushed back amid a chaotic protest. Federal prosecutors later accused her of assaulting and obstructing officers during a visit with Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who was also arrested but later had charges against him dropped.
McIver pleaded not guilty and faces up to 17 years in prison if convicted on all counts. She appeared in court on Tuesday as a judge began hearing arguments on whether to dismiss the indictment. As of press time, no ruling had been issued.
As the proceedings continued, U.S. District Judge Jamel Semper ordered the Trump administration to remove several “prejudicial” social media posts from the Department of Homeland Security’s official social media account that described McIver’s visit to the detention center as “a reckless stunt by sanctuary politicians.” He also directed prosecutors to provide additional video evidence that her defense team said had not been turned over.
Outside the courthouse, supporters rallied in her defense, accusing the Trump administration of weaponizing the Justice Department against political opponents.
McIver, who won a full term in November 2024 after a special election victory two months earlier, has framed the prosecution as political retribution aimed at silencing dissent over President Donald Trump’s hard-line immigration agenda.
Related | GOP hits unexpected roadblock in push to punish Democrats
The indictment itself is unusual: a sitting member of Congress charged not with corruption or financial crimes, but with physically confronting federal agents. It also represents the latest flashpoint in Trump’s ongoing clash with Democrats who’ve opposed his immigration crackdowns.
McIver is not the only official testing the boundaries of the immunity precedent. In Milwaukee, a local judge charged with allegedly shielding an undocumented immigrant from ICE arrest had also invoked the Supreme Court ruling.
“Immunity is not a defense to the prosecution to be determined later by a jury or court; it is an absolute bar to the prosecution at the outset,” her lawyers argued. That claim failed, however, and the judge’s trial is set for December, ABC News reported.
For McIver, the stakes are particularly high. Members of Congress cannot accept pro bono legal help, according to Politico, meaning an extended court battle could be financially devastating. Democrats have warned that prosecutions like hers, even if ultimately unsuccessful, could chill congressional oversight.
Related | ICE attorneys find horrific new way to fast-track deportations
This isn’t McIver’s first run-in with Republican retaliation. In September, House Democrats—joined by a few GOP members—blocked an effort to censure her and remove her from the Homeland Security Committee. Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana argued that it was a “significant conflict of interest” for McIver to serve on a panel overseeing ICE while facing related charges.
Whether McIver’s immunity argument succeeds remains to be seen. For now, she’s betting that the same legal shield Trump fought for—and won—can protect her, too.
