A Democratic lawmaker accused by Donald Trump’s administration of “forcibly impeding” federal immigration officers outside a New Jersey detention facility has argued the charges against her should be dropped because of the president’s own presidential immunity case.
Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) was indicted by a grand jury in June and faces up to 17 years in prison if convicted on all counts.
On Tuesday she filed to have the case thrown out on grounds of “legislative immunity,” citing the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision that Trump had absolute immunity for “official acts,” Politico’s Playbook reported.
Her lawyers argued that members of Congress should have broad legal protection as they carry out their oversight duties, according to Playbook.
“Putting Congresswoman McIver on trial for exercising her constitutionally and statutorily vested duties … would deter other Members from conducting legitimate oversight,” the lawyers wrote.
The congresswoman—who is the first sitting elected representative to be prosecuted by the Trump administration—is motivated in part to get the charges thrown out before the trial starts because lawmakers are not allowed to accept pro bono legal support, according to Politico.
The Daily Beast has reached out to the Department of Justice and McIver for comment.
Criminal defense is expensive, and Democrats have argued that unless potentially-charged prosecutions are dismissed before they go to trial, the indictments will have a chilling effect on lawmakers even if the defendants are ultimately found not guilty.
McIver was one of several Democratic lawmakers arrested in New Jersey last summer for trying to enter a detention facility and conduct congressional oversight.
Video captured during a chaotic confrontation outside the center showed McIver pushing back on an agent who was shoving her other members of a crowd.
McIver, who was the only person charged, was scheduled to appear in court Tuesday for oral arguments on whether the judge in the case should dismiss the charges against her.
The 6-3 ruling in Trump’s case involved his criminal prosecution over his attempts to overturn former President Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory.
It didn’t provide a standard for what counts as an “official act” or determine whether any of Trump’s individual actions fell within that category, saying only that the lower courts needed to consider the case in light of the sweeping immunity afforded to the president.
A Milwaukee judge who was arrested in May for allegedly shielding an undocumented immigrant from ICE arrest also argued that she couldn’t be prosecuted under the 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,” lawyers for Judge Hannah Dugan wrote.
The judge, however, rejected those arguments and set a trial date for December, ABC News reported.
Dugan had told agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement that they needed a warrant to arrest an undocumented immigrant who had appeared in her courtroom on a misdemeanor charge and let him leave the courtroom through her chambers.
The man was ultimately arrested, and Dugan was arrested and charged a week later.
The post Indicted Dem Lawmaker Fights Back With Trump’s Own Immunity Case appeared first on The Daily Beast.
