Raskin launches probe of McIver charges in ICE facility scuffle
Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is launching an investigation into the charges filed against Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) and the mayor of Newark, N.J., saying the moves appears to violate Justice Department policy.
McIver was charged last month after a scuffle with Department of Homeland Security officers outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility after they began to arrest Newark Mayor Ras Baraka (D).
Alina Habba, the U.S. attorney for New Jersey and former personal attorney to President Trump, charged McIver with assaulting law enforcement, saying she used her forearms to push back against agents.
Habba's office has already moved to dismiss the trespassing charges initially filed against Baraka, earning a reprimand from the judge in the case who cited an 'apparent rush in this case, culminating … in the embarrassing retraction of charges.'
'Ms. Habba's unprecedented charging decision is a blatant attempt to intimidate Members of Congress and to deter us from carrying out our constitutional oversight duties. It appears Ms. Habba brought these charges in violation of long-standing Department of Justice (DOJ) policies designed to prevent exactly this type of politically motivated abuse of prosecutorial power,' Raskin wrote.
Raskin fired off a series of questions about the charges brought against both McIver and Baraka.
That includes whether there was any contact with the Public Integrity Section of the DOJ.
'DOJ prosecutors must consult with the Public Integrity Section before initiating an investigation of Members of Congress and must seek the Section's approval before bringing charges. 21 Reports suggest, however, that Ms. Habba did not,' Raskin wrote.
'The consultation requirement is designed to guard against a rampant Executive Branch weaponizing the vast apparatus of federal law enforcement against the President's perceived enemies, or even the perception that a DOJ investigation or prosecution was motivated by improper political purpose. The Justice Manual is clear that approval from the Public Integrity Section is required before charging a Member of Congress with a crime based on actions taken in their official capacity.'
The Justice Department said it is considering removing the requirement that prosecutors first consult with the Public Integrity Section.
Raskin asks the DOJ whom Habba consulted before bringing charges, if she coordinated with Trump or any White House staff, and to turn over all communications regarding the charges.
For her part, McIver has denied any wrongdoing and noted she rejected a plea deal from Habba, saying it pushed her to 'admit to doing something that I did not do.'
'I came there to do my job and conduct an oversight visit, and they wanted me to say something differently, and I'm not doing that. I'm not going to roll over and stop doing my job because they don't want me to, or they want to neglect the fact that we needed to be in there to see what was going on and that detention center, and so, absolutely, no, I was not going to do that,' McIver said last month during an appearance on CNN.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
37 minutes ago
- CNBC
Tax cut and budget bill will ultimately pass, says former Chief of Staff Marc Short
Marc Short, former Chief of Staff to VP Pence, joins 'Squawk on the Street' to discuss the latest bill to work its way through Congress, the Musk-Trump debacle and much more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Debates over presidential power to suspend habeas corpus resurface in Trump administration
The principle of habeas corpus, a legal phrase, is a simple one: Translated from the Latin as 'produce the body,' it provides that a judge may compel prosecutors to supply evidence to determine whether someone has been legally detained or arrested. In the U.S., a detained or arrested individual, or their legal representative, may ask a judge to decide based on the evidence presented whether the detainee has been legally confined. That process is termed 'seeking a writ.' Suspending the privilege of the writ, also known as 'suspending the writ,' denies that individual or their representation from making that request or a judge from honoring it. The 'privilege' in that phrase is a right of the accused. In the past few months, members of the Trump administration have raised the issue of the president's power to suspend the privilege of habeas corpus. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller in May 2025 shared with the media the news that administration officials were exploring the possibility of suspending the privilege of the writ to help the administration deport immigrants quickly. Eleven days later, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem declared at a congressional hearing that habeas corpus 'is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country,' a misunderstanding of this foundational legal right immediately challenged by New Hampshire Senator Maggie Hassan. Article I of the U.S. Constitution declares that 'the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.' Suspension is thus a grave and serious matter. This is not the first time that Americans have debated which branch of government – the executive branch or Congress – has the power to suspend the privilege of the writ and under what circumstances it may do so. Habeas corpus became a major point of controversy during the Civil War, when President Abraham Lincoln suspended the privilege of the writ, first in parts of Maryland and later throughout the nation, without seeking prior congressional approval. While the Constitution provides for the suspension of the writ, the document is silent as to who has the power to exercise this authority. Although most of this section of the Constitution concerns the powers of Congress, it also addresses the power and authority of other branches in specific instances. And the use of the passive voice – 'shall not be suspended' – in this section leaves the question of who can suspend the writ open to interpretation. The questions of who may suspend the privilege of the writ and under what circumstances emerged in the spring of 1861. On April 12, Confederate forces fired on U.S.-controlled Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, an act that is considered the formal start of the war. A week later, Marylanders supporting secession clashed with militia from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania who were making their way through Baltimore to defend Washington. Lincoln refused to honor requests from Maryland Governor Thomas Hicks and Baltimore Mayor George Brown to avoid transporting reinforcements through Baltimore. The president initially tried to skirt any conflict by routing the reinforcements through Annapolis. This proved a stopgap measure. On April 27, Lincoln authorized General Winfield Scott, commanding general of the U.S. Army, to suspend the privilege of the writ between Philadelphia and Washington, if necessary. This would permit arbitrary arrests and detaining of people determined to be acting in support of the insurrection. To protect national security, U.S. military authorities arrested John Merryman on May 25, 1861. Merryman, who was from Baltimore, was suspected of involvement in destroying railroad bridges to obstruct Union troop movements. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney honored a request from Merryman's lawyers to issue a writ of habeas corpus, only to have federal military authorities refuse to produce Merryman, who remained at his cell in Fort McHenry. Taney then ruled that neither Lincoln nor military personnel under his command could suspend the privilege of the writ when it came to civilians such as Merryman. 'If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the Legislature to say so,' wrote Taney, quoting an 1807 opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall. Days later, on June 1, Taney offered a more extended decision reflecting his reasoning that Congress, not the president, could suspend the privilege of the writ. Taney was challenging the president's authority to act unilaterally. Lincoln ignored Taney's ruling. He reasoned that in time of emergency, especially with Congress not in session, he – as president – was compelled to act in the interests of national security. He did so to protect the movement of troops through Maryland to defend the national capital. Not only did Lincoln's order remain in place, but the president later expanded its geographic scope in several instances, most notably in September 1862. On the heels of issuing the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln authorized the detention of individuals accused of obstructing efforts to raise troops or who sought to support the rebellion. Unwilling to concede that Lincoln's actions need not seek congressional approval, Congress, first in 1861, then through the Habeas Corpus Act of 1863 offered retroactive sanction of the actions of the executive branch and, in 1863, empowered Lincoln to suspend the privilege of the writ in the future in the interests of national security for the duration of the rebellion. Democrats, however, criticized Lincoln's actions as arbitrary, unconstitutional and smacking of tyranny. Almost a decade later, in 1871, President Ulysses S. Grant declined to act on his own to suspend the privilege of the writ to prosecute white supremacist terrorists in the Reconstruction South, requiring that Congress first pass legislation authorizing him to do so. Since the Civil War, only once has a president unilaterally suspended the privilege of the writ without prior congressional authorization. That's what President Franklin D. Roosevelt did in Hawaii after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, in order to combat any suspicious activity that might be construed as espionage. With Congress currently in session, lawmakers could authorize the president to suspend the privilege of the writ to set aside debates over executive overreach. Otherwise, presidents might define as emergencies situations that do not meet the extreme circumstances envisioned by the Constitution while sidestepping congressional approval. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Brooks D. Simpson, Arizona State University Read more: Habeas corpus: A thousand-year-old legal principle for defending rights that's getting a workout under the Trump administration Supreme Court's decision on deportations gave both the Trump administration and ACLU reasons to claim a victory − but noncitizens clearly lost How constitutional guardrails have always contained presidential ambitions Brooks D. Simpson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Property taxes, book bans and resolutions: Three Grand Forks lawmakers discuss recent session
Jun. 6—GRAND FORKS — Through an hour-long conversation looking back on the 2025 legislative session, three Grand Forks state lawmakers found moments of agreement and professed similar opinions on issues more than they disagreed. Rep. Nels Christianson, Rep. Erik Murphy and Rep. Zac Ista, all from Grand Forks, went through some of the topics from the session with different mindsets but familiar answers. For example, on the matter of property tax and Gov. Kelly Armstrong's bill — which expanded the primary tax credit to a maximum $1,600 and capped local-level tax increases to no more than 3% annually — Christianson said they found some common ground. Property tax was one of the several issues discussed during the legislative wrap-up, held at the Grand Forks County office building on Thursday, June 5. All 18 members of districts 17, 18, 19, 20, 42 and 43 were invited, but Ista, Murphy and Christianson were the only ones in attendance. Joel Heitkamp, host of KFGO News and Views and a former state senator, served as moderator. Some issues involved public funding to private schools, Medicaid, the North Dakota Republican Party and what bills the legislators worked on. Property tax was among the most newsworthy issues during the session. Armstrong discussed it prior to his November election and his bill, HB 1176, was not passed until May 2, near the end of the session. "Did we deliver relief? Yes," Christianson said. "Reform? Maybe not so much." Murphy said property taxes are typically something outside of the Legislature's lane, but that he begrudgingly supported Armstrong's property tax bill. "Property tax is part of the reality of living in a nation such as ours," he said. "Property tax, to me, is a local issue." Ista, the only Democrat among the three, said there will be a trade-off. Homeowners will get some tax relief, but political subdivisions will have to figure out how to continue to pay for things. "Now the burden is going to fall on our local, county, city, school districts to see how to live within this new reality. I think it's going to be a challenge going forward for the state and locals to balance it," he said. One issue on which all three agreed was the matter of banning books. Each legislator was against it, though they had different thoughts on the matter. Ista said he has voted against every book censorship bill, and will continue to do so every chance he gets. "The issues in our state that affect our kids are not what books are displayed where in our libraries," he said. "I love taking my kids to Grand Forks Public Library and watch them go down that big pink slide, and I've never once worried about what book they might stumble into." Christianson said that, under no circumstances, should books be banned. Instead, he said, they should be placed in the appropriate area, and that he wants his daughters to be able to go around the children's section of the library and look at any books they would like in that section. "I absolutely do not support taking anything out of the ability for people to check out from the library," he said. "I just want to make sure that ... parents have a chance to be in the loop, just that parents can understand what their children are reading, especially in the younger ages." Murphy said there are better things to do and think about in North Dakota than book bans, and he mentioned Senate Bill 2307, which would have required libraries to make material considered sexually explicit unavailable to minors, and could penalize failure to comply. One issue he took with the bill was the difference between what was said about it versus what it would really do, he said. "What it really did is, opened up every library in the state, whether it's UND's library, it opened up the (North Dakota Museum of Art)," he said. "If there's a nude in there, that could be considered pornography, therefore we need to take that picture down." Two resolutions that failed during the session — House Concurrent Resolution 3013, which requested the U.S. Supreme Court overturn gay marriage, and House Concurrent Resolution 3020, declaring that "Christ is King" of North Dakota — drew disagreement between Christianson, who voted "yes" on both, and the other two legislators, who voted against them. Christianson's thought on HCR 3013 was that issues such as marriage need to be defined at the state level, not through a court decision, referencing Obergefell vs. Hodges, the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding same-sex marriages. Ista said that it was probably the darkest day of the session for him when the resolution came to the floor, and that he was caught "flat-footed" by it. He said he had thought everyone had moved beyond the issue of marriage equality. Murphy said it's not up to him to decide who any individual should love. He also said that during this recent school year, he knew of students who were transgender and transitioning. The resolution sends the wrong message to North Dakota residents and creates a division in the state, he said. As for HCR 3020, Murphy simply said "absolutely not" when Heitkamp asked if he thought North Dakota should be in the business of declaring that Christ is king. Ista said that the faith leaders in his life respected a foundational concept of no official religions in America, and that, while he respects the religion of his colleagues, the state should be accommodating to all religions and not place one above the others. Christianson said the resolution would have no effect on state policies, claiming that he voted for what he believes is the truth. "It was simply a statement, and that's a statement that I will make every day, that Christ is king," he said.
