LaMonica McIver takes ICE oversight case to full appeals court: ‘I will fight like hell’
TheGrio...
Her attorneys say the case raises constitutional questions about whether the executive branch can prosecute lawmakers conducting oversight.
Rep. LaMonica McIver is asking the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to reconsider her effort to have federal charges against her dismissed, continuing a legal fight stemming from her 2025 oversight visit to an ICE detention center in New Jersey.
On Friday, McIver and her attorneys filed a brief requesting an en banc hearing, which would allow the full appeals court to consider the case rather than a three-judge panel. The smaller panel declined to dismiss the charges against her in August, setting in motion the latest filing. Her latest appeal asks the full Third Circuit to take up the constitutional questions at the center of her case as she continues challenging the prosecution.
McIver faces a potential decade-plus prison sentence if convicted on alleged assault charges stemming from a May 2025 congressional oversight visit to Delany Hall, an ICE detention facility in her district.
“As I have said since last May, oversight is my job,” McIver said in a statement. “Members of Congress have a right to do oversight even, and especially, when the administration does not like what they find. I will fight like hell to protect that right.”
McIver has maintained that the charges against her are baseless and are being wielded as an intimidation tactic against her as she tries to carry out her duties as a member of Congress and raise questions about the governing body’s authority ot conduct oversight of the executive branch, including ICE and Homeland Security.
Earlier this year, the New Jersey rep told a gathering during a fireside chat that she felt isolated in her fight against the charges without her party’s support. She’s the only sitting member of Congress to be indicted by the Justice Department under President Trump during an ICE oversight visit.
“I’m in this journey alone,” she told the audience. “I’m thankful for the people who have my back, who helped me raise the dollars thus far … But at the end of the day, why should someone from the Democratic Party, literally from the Democratic Party, be struggling to get just a million dollars … to fight this case? Why is that so hard?”
Her attorney, Paul J. Fishman, took McIver’s argument and framed it as a larger question of the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, particularly regarding lawmakers conducting congressional oversight.
“This case is about whether the Executive Branch can interfere with and try to intimidate members of Congress who are doing the oversight the Constitution requires of them,” Fishman said. “The executive branch should not and cannot be allowed to use its power over criminal prosecutions to retaliate against those it would like to silence.”