Remember Rep. LaMonica McIver (NJ-10), the New Jersey Democrat who protested ICE at the Delaney Hall detention center in Newark in 2025 and allegedly assaulted law enforcement officers? The DOJ charged her with two felonies and one misdemeanor for her antics, but she thinks she should be let off because she’s so important (or something).

On Wednesday, a three-judge appellate court panel rejected her bid to derail the prosecution on the central claim that her conduct was protected by congressional immunity — though it sent one of the three counts back to the trial court for another look.

🚨 BREAKING: A federal appeals court has REJECTED Democrat Rep. LaMonica McIver's immunity defense after she ASSAULTED ICE agents in Newark, 2-1

FAFO!🔥

Video shows McIver, in a red jacket, committing FEDERAL FELONIES by striking MULTIPLE ICE agents during a fit of entitled rage

McIver faces 17 YEARS in prison on three counts (2 felony, 1 misdemeanor) of assaulting, resisting, impeding, and interfering with federal officers.

MORE: Finding Out: Justice Department to Bring Charges Against LaMonica McIver Over Delaney Hall Affair

Watch: Democrat Congresswoman Charged With Assaulting ICE Agents Goes Insane During Hearing

McIver seems to be confused about the difference between the concepts of “speech and debate” and “physical violence.”

Recommended
El-Sayed's Post on Dolly Parton's Death Has People Up in Arms Nick Arama The Trump Admin Just Found a Pressure Point That Could Disrupt Antifa's Entire Network Ward Clark

The ruling on Wednesday from the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals comes as McIver has pushed to get the case dismissed on various grounds, including that her visit to the Delaney Hall detention facility was carried out in her role as a legislative official and should be protected by prosecution under the Speech or Debate Clause.

The three-judge panel declined to toss the case on a number of grounds raised by McIver, finding that while her inspection of Delaney Hall was protected under the clause, her intervention in the arrest of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka (D) was not.

More precisely, the appeals court agreed that McIver's inspection of the facility itself was protected legislative activity. But it drew a distinction between that oversight role and the physical conduct alleged in the first two counts, finding the latter was not protected by the Speech or Debate Clause.

The panel did, however, vacate the lower court's ruling as to count three and send that portion of the case back for further consideration by the trial judge. While the first two felony counts directly involved the assault charges, the third was a misdemeanor and broader, charging that McIver “did forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, and interfere” with ICE while performing official duties. Because that count sweeps more broadly than the first two, the district judge must determine whether it encompasses conduct protected by the Speech or Debate Clause — and, if so, whether the charge can survive without relying on that protected conduct.

McIver, who’s known to complain loudly and preen for the cameras as she tries to interfere with federal law enforcement, was once again left to play the victim:

“I fundamentally believe that the court got it wrong here. To protect the people, their elected representatives must be authorized to conduct oversight of the executive branch without fear of retaliation,” she said in a statement.

“Today’s decision chills that authority and emboldens the Trump administration to continue persecuting our most vulnerable communities, those who try to defend them, and anyone who dares hold the president or his lackeys accountable.”

Judge Thomas Ambro, who concurred in part and dissented in part, would have allowed McIver to pursue discovery into her claim that the prosecution was politically motivated:

“Potentially retaliatory prosecutions of sitting Members of Congress are exceedingly rare. But when they do occur, the constitutional foundation of our government is at risk,” [Judge Thomas] Ambro wrote.

Shoving officers and interfering with operations certainly doesn’t seem to many laymen like “legislative oversight” or “speech and debate.” It’s time for McIver to find that out.