Rep. LaMonica McIver’s Assault Case Tests Congressional Immunity

On June 24, 2026 a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard arguments from Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) and the Justice Department on whether to dismiss her indictment stemming from a May 9, 2025 confrontation outside the Delaney Hall ICE detention facility in Newark. The indictment charges McIver with two felonies and one misdemeanor for assaulting, resisting, and impeding federal officers, offenses that carry up to 17 years in prison and an estimated $1 million in legal costs.

Washington ExaminerNew York TimesCNNRoll Call

McIver’s attorney, Paul Fishman, contended that the oversight visit was a “manifestly legislative act” shielded by the Speech-or-Debate Clause, and that dismissing the case is essential to protect congressional oversight. Justice Department counsel Mark Coyne replied that “use of physical force is never, never covered by the Speech or Debate clause,” arguing the clause does not extend to alleged violence. The panel probed whether McIver’s conduct qualifies as assault, with Judge Thomas Ambro noting it “doesn’t seem like assault,” and questioned whether the prosecution is unusually selective, a point highlighted by Judge Stephanos Bibas.

CNN

An amicus brief filed by 20 former members of Congress—17 Republicans and three Democrats—warned that allowing the prosecution would create a “perverse incentive for Executive Branch officials to act in a more chaotic and unsafe fashion.” Fishman cited statements from former Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to argue political motivation. House Democrats, including Reps. Jamie Raskin and Rashida Tlaib, publicly backed McIver, characterizing the charges as an attempt to criminalize legitimate oversight.

New York Times

Judge Ambro suggested the conduct “doesn’t seem like assault,” while the indictment alleges McIver “struck federal agents with her forearms and elbows.” The Justice Department says it cannot review the vindictive-prosecution claim at this stage, and no concrete evidence of selective prosecution has been presented.

Washington Examiner

• “If the Department of Justice is allowed to proceed with this prosecution, it would create a perverse incentive for Executive Branch officials to act in a more chaotic and unsafe fashion, and create new, unprecedented tools to block legitimate legislative oversight,” — Lawyers for 20 former members of Congress

New York Times

• “Use of physical force is never, never covered by the speech or debate clause,” — Mark Coyne, Justice Department attorney

Roll Call

• “The entire visit was a manifestly legislative act,” — Paul Fishman, attorney for Rep. LaMonica McIver

Roll Call

• “I have literally the president of the United States and the Department of Justice trying to send me to jail for 17 years — that’s very frightening,” — Rep. LaMonica McIver

CNN

The panel will issue a written opinion in the coming months. A ruling favoring McIver would broaden congressional immunity for oversight activities; a decision upholding the indictment would allow the criminal case to proceed in district court, clarifying the limits of the Speech-or-Debate Clause.

Washington Examiner