Rep. LaMonica McIver met her October 9 legal deadline, asking the full federal appeals court to reconsider criminal charges stemming from a 2025 confrontation with immigration agents in Newark, just eight days after delivering her second child.
NEWARK, NJ — Democratic Congresswoman LaMonica McIver is continuing her fight against federal criminal charges, filing a request Friday, October 9, for the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to reconsider a decision allowing prosecutors to move forward with her case.
The filing came eight days after the 40-year-old New Jersey congresswoman gave birth to her second child, a baby girl, on October 1.
McIver, who represents New Jersey’s 10th Congressional District, faces three federal counts stemming from a May 9, 2025, confrontation outside the Delaney Hall immigration detention facility in Newark.
Federal prosecutors accuse her of forcibly interfering with officers during an attempt to arrest Newark Mayor Ras Baraka.
McIver has pleaded not guilty and argues that the prosecution violates constitutional protections afforded to members of Congress conducting official oversight.
Her attorneys faced an October 9 deadline to request further appellate review. Rather than allowing that deadline to pass, they filed a petition seeking reconsideration by the full Third Circuit.
The congresswoman announced the filing in an October 9 statement, confirming that her legal team is pursuing an en banc rehearing.
McIver welcomes second daughter while facing federal prosecution
McIver gave birth Thursday, October 1, becoming one of a small number of women to deliver a child while serving in Congress.
Her office confirmed that she welcomed a healthy baby girl, her second daughter.
“Being a mom is one of the greatest joys of my life, and I feel deeply grateful to welcome this beautiful, healthy baby into the world,” McIver said in a statement published on her official congressional website.
The congresswoman has said she intends to spend October recovering and bonding with her newborn before returning to congressional voting duties in November.
Her legal proceedings have continued despite the birth, requiring her attorneys to respond to the appeals court’s August ruling while she is on maternity leave.
Federal appeals court rejected most of McIver’s dismissal arguments
On August 26, a divided three-judge panel of the Third Circuit rejected McIver’s attempt to dismiss two of the three criminal counts against her.
In its 49-page opinion, the court concluded that the physical conduct alleged in those two counts was not protected legislative activity under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause.
The judges sent the third count back to the federal district court for further consideration of McIver’s legislative immunity arguments.
The ruling did not determine whether McIver assaulted federal officers. It addressed whether the prosecution could proceed despite her constitutional objections.
McIver rejected the decision and maintained that the case threatens the independence of congressional oversight.
Her latest filing asks the full appeals court to revisit those constitutional questions.
How the criminal case began at Newark’s Delaney Hall
The prosecution dates to May 9, 2025, when McIver joined fellow Democratic Representatives Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez for an unannounced congressional oversight inspection of Delaney Hall, an immigration detention center in Newark.
Newark Mayor Ras Baraka also arrived at the facility, where federal officials ordered him to leave the secured premises.
A confrontation developed as immigration agents attempted to arrest Baraka outside the facility’s security gate.
According to the federal indictment, McIver placed herself between Baraka and an agent, struck the agent with her forearm and attempted to restrain him.
Prosecutors also allege she struck another officer while attempting to reenter the detention facility.
McIver disputes the prosecution’s characterization of her actions and maintains that she was exercising her congressional oversight responsibilities.
Baraka was arrested on a trespassing charge, but federal prosecutors dropped the case against him on May 21, 2025.
Federal indictment followed confrontation
On May 19, 2025, federal prosecutors filed a criminal complaint against McIver.
A federal grand jury subsequently returned a three-count indictment on June 10, charging her under a statute prohibiting forcible assault, resistance, opposition and interference with federal officers performing their duties.
McIver pleaded not guilty.
Her attorneys moved to dismiss the charges in August 2025, arguing that the prosecution violated the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, the separation of powers doctrine and protections against selective or vindictive prosecution.
U.S. District Judge Jamel K. Semper rejected the dismissal arguments in rulings issued in November 2025 and January 2026.
McIver appealed, leading to oral arguments before the Third Circuit on June 24 and the August 26 decision that largely upheld the prosecution.
McIver and attorney accuse administration of retaliation
In announcing Friday’s petition, McIver again argued that the case was intended to discourage congressional oversight of immigration enforcement.
“Members of Congress have a right to do oversight even, and especially, when the administration does not like what they find,” McIver said.
“I will fight like hell to protect that right.”
Her attorney, former U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman, characterized the case as a dispute over whether the executive branch can use criminal prosecutions to intimidate legislators.
“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,” Fishman said.
Federal prosecutors maintain that the charges concern McIver’s alleged physical interference with law enforcement officers, not her political views or the legality of congressional inspections.
The appellate panel’s August decision accepted that distinction for the first two counts while requiring additional examination of the third.
What happens next in McIver’s federal case?
Friday’s filing does not mean the full Third Circuit will automatically rehear the case.
The court must decide whether to grant McIver’s request for en banc review. If accepted, the larger court would reconsider the relevant legal questions arising from the August decision.
If the request is denied, McIver could pursue further review in the U.S. Supreme Court or continue defending herself in federal district court.
The third count also remains subject to further consideration following the appellate panel’s decision to return that issue to the trial judge.
McIver faces a reported combined maximum potential sentence of 17 years if convicted on all counts, although that figure is a statutory exposure estimate rather than a prediction of the sentence she would receive.
As of Saturday, October 10, no ruling on her newly filed request for rehearing had been announced.
The confirmed development is that McIver met her October 9 deadline and elected to continue the appellate fight.