logo
McIver heads to court as watchdog group files complaint against Alina Habba

McIver heads to court as watchdog group files complaint against Alina Habba

Yahoo5 hours ago

Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) is expected to appear in federal court for the first time Wednesday morning on a trio of charges following a May scuffle outside a federal immigration facility.
At her arraignment in Newark, McIver will plead not guilty, spokesperson Hanna Rumsey said. McIver is accused in a three-count indictment of slamming a federal agent with her forearm, 'forcibly' grabbing him and using her forearms to strike another agent.
Allegations of physical violence by a sitting member of Congress are rare, with a handful of incidents including the pre-Civil War caning of a senator by a member of the House.
McIver's allies, including two other Democrats who were with her during the incident, have decried the charges as political and have said she was roughed up by federal agents. Her allies are also trying to turn the tables on the federal prosecutor bringing the case, the interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, Alina Habba.
The Campaign for Accountability, a liberal watchdog group, filed a complaint this week against Habba with the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics.
The complaint alleges Habba has acted improperly since becoming a prosecutor and cites her actions in the McIver case, along with comments about turning 'New Jersey red' and announcing investigations into its Democratic governor and attorney general over immigration.
A spokesperson for Habba did not respond to a request for comment.
'In an atmosphere where other oversight bodies are caving to political influence, the bar's duty to independently enforce these rules is ever more important,' the group's executive director, Michelle Kuppersmith, said.
Habba, who represented Donald Trump in court between his presidencies, is already facing a lawsuit brought against her by Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who was arrested for trespassing at the detention facility before the charges were dropped and a judge questioned Habba's judgment.
When she first announced charges against McIver, Habba said she had 'made efforts to address these issues without bringing criminal charges and have given Rep. McIver every opportunity to come to a resolution, but she has unfortunately declined.' The watchdog group's complaint alleges it was improper to say the charges were contingent on McIver taking actions ordered and approved by Habba.
Campaign for Accountability filed a similar complaint in New York against another federal prosecutor, Emil Bove, after he moved to drop charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. The New York attorney grievance committee declined to act and instead transferred the complaint to the Department of Justice.
The charges against McIver are an extraordinary stress-test for the separation of powers at a time in which Trump is seeking to maximize executive branch dominance. In recent weeks, New York City mayoral candidate Brad Lander was handcuffed and arrested by federal agents while escorting migrants from immigration hearings and Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was forcibly removed from a Department of Homeland Security press conference.
Neither Lender nor Padilla have been charged with anything. The two Democrats who were with McIver outside the immigration facility — Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez — have also not been charged.
The three New Jersey Democrats have said they were at the immigration detention facility exercising their oversight duties and were roughed up by federal agents. Since their oversight visit, several detainees escaped and there were reports of poor conditions inside the facility, which the private company that runs the facility has denied.
McIver appeared virtually at a previous hearing in May, after charges were filed but before a grand jury returned an indictment. She was allowed to appear remotely from Washington because Congress was in session. Since then, the indictment has put her case in front of U.S. District Court Judge Jamel Semper.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Wisconsin Supreme Court sides with Republican Legislature in fight with governor
Wisconsin Supreme Court sides with Republican Legislature in fight with governor

Associated Press

time14 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Wisconsin Supreme Court sides with Republican Legislature in fight with governor

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court handed a victory to the Republican-controlled Legislature on Wednesday in a power struggle with Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. The court, in a unanimous ruling where the four liberal justices joined with three conservatives, struck down Evers' partial veto of a Republican bill in a case that tested both the limits of his broad veto powers and the Legislature's ability to exert influence by controlling funding. The court also ruled that the Legislature can put money for certain state programs into an emergency fund under the control of its budget committee. Evers had argued such a move was unconstitutional. The ruling against Evers comes after the court earlier this year upheld Evers' partial veto that locked in a school funding increase for 400 years. The court last year issued a ruling that reined in some powers of the Legislature's budget committee, while this ruling went the other way. Evers clashes with Legislature Evers, in his seventh year as governor, has frequently clashed with the Legislature and often used his broad veto powers to kill their proposals. Republican lawmakers have tried to take control away from the governor's office by placing money to fund certain programs and state agencies in an emergency fund controlled by the Legislature's budget committee. That gives the Legislature significant influence over that funding and the implementation of certain programs within the executive branch. Evers argued that the Legislature is trying to limit his partial veto power and illegally control how the executive branch spends money. The state Supreme Court on Wednesday disagreed. It ruled that Evers improperly used his partial veto on a bill that detailed the plan for spending on new literacy programs designed to improve K-12 students' reading performance. The court also sided with the Legislature and said the budget committee can legally put money into an emergency fund to be distributed later. That is what it has done with the $50 million for the literacy program. Evers and Republican lawmakers did not immediately return messages seeking comment. Fight over literacy funding In 2023, Evers signed into law a bill that created an early literacy coaching program within the state Department of Public Instruction. The bill also created grants for schools that adopt approved reading curricula to pay for changing their programs and to train teachers on the new practices. However, Republicans put the $50 million to pay for the new initiative in a separate emergency fund controlled by the Legislature's budget committee. That money remains in limbo amid disagreements about how the money would be used and who would decide how to spend it. Evers argued that the Legislature didn't have the power to withhold the money and the court should order it to be released to the education department. The Legislature has been increasing the amount of money it puts in the emergency fund that it can release at its discretion, but it remains a small percentage of the total state budget. In the last budget, about $230 million was in the fund, or about half of a percentage point of the entire budget. Republicans sue to stop veto Evers used his partial veto power on another bill that created the mechanism for spending the $50 million for the new program. He argued that his changes would simplify the process and give DPI more flexibility. Evers also eliminated grants for private voucher and charter schools. Republican legislators sued, contending that the governor illegally used his partial veto power. State law allows only for a partial veto of bills that spend money. For all other bills, the governor must either sign or veto them in their entirety. Because the bill Evers partially vetoed was a framework for spending, but didn't actually allocate any money, his partial vetoes were unconstitutional, lawmakers argued. Evers argued for a liberal interpretation of his veto powers. He said that by challenging it, the Legislature was trying to weaken his powers. A Dane County judge sided with Evers, determining that the bill in question qualified as an appropriations bill subject to partial vetoes. But in a win for the Legislature, he did not find fault with the Legislature's budget committee putting funding for the program under its control. The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed with the lower court that putting the money into the emergency fund was legal. But the court also said Evers' veto was illegal.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store