Trump's former lawyer wants to make an example of Rep. LaMonica McIver
Since returning to the White House in January, President Donald Trump has brought many of the lawyers who defended him between terms along for the ride. His former personal attorneys now litter the top ranks of the Justice Department. Alina Habba was a later addition to that group, with Trump naming her as the interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey in March, but she's trying to make up for lost time in an audacious attempt to use her office against a sitting lawmaker.
Last month, Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., got into a confrontation with officials at an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement detention center she was attempting to visit. This week, Habba announced that a federal grand jury handed up charges accusing the congresswoman of assaulting two law enforcement officers during that standoff. In a post on X, Habba framed the charges as part of her job 'to ensure that our federal partners are protected when executing their duties.' McIver said in a statement that the indictment was 'a brazen attempt at political intimidation' and that she will plead not guilty.
Habba's statement added that though 'people are free to express their views for or against particular policies, they must not do so in a manner that endangers law enforcement and the communities those officers serve.' Let's leave aside for a moment whether McIver's actions, which were partially captured on video, truly 'endangered' the officers in question. Instead, let's focus on the message that the charges Habba sought telegraph about how the Trump administration will handle lawmakers' attempts at aggressive oversight.
As the administration's mass deportation efforts have ramped up, so have demands from Democratic lawmakers that detainees be treated humanely. Here we hit upon the least controversial part of McIver's case: As a member of Congress, she had every right to be at the Delaney Hall Federal Immigration Facility in Newark last month. In 2020, Congress passed an appropriations bill that funded DHS (among other agencies) and stipulates that none of its funding 'may be used to prevent ... a Member of Congress ... from entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens.' The bill, which was reaffirmed last year, also blocks DHS from making any changes to ICE facilities that would give visiting members a false impression of conditions there and stipulates that members don't have to give notification before they visit.
DHS' own internal guidance around congressional visits to ICE facilities makes it clear that it's well aware of the law on this front. There are some limitations, including a requirement that detainees sign privacy releases before meeting with visitors from Capitol Hill. But while congressional staffers must provide 24 hours' notice before visits, the same isn't true for members themselves.
Even the initial complaint filed against McIver acknowledged as much, as one of the law enforcement officers told her, ''Congress people are different,' indicating members of Congress had lawful authority to be there.'
Yet we've seen numerous cases around the country in which ICE officials, not members of Congress, are breaking the law. Over the last week, at least five lawmakers have been turned away from ICE facilities during attempted visits. According to The New York Times, Reps. Adriano Espaillat and Nydia Velázquez of New York, attempting 'to investigate reports of overcrowding, stifling heat and migrants sleeping on bathroom floors' at a detention facility in Manhattan, were denied access 'because it was a 'sensitive facility.''
A spokesperson for DHS said in a statement that the denial was because lawmakers had showed up unannounced and that ICE 'would be happy to give them a tour with a little more notice, when it would not disrupt ongoing law enforcement activities and sensitive law enforcement items could be put away.' Again, the language in the law providing DHS', funding specifically provides for snap visits from House members and the department's guidance has no 'sensitive facilities' exemption to allowing access.
A complicating factor in McIver's case, though, is that the altercation itself actually wasn't over her presence at the facility. Instead, it was because she was intervening on behalf of Newark Mayor Ras Bakara, who attempted to enter the facility, as well, at the same time. It was when DHS attempted to remove Bakara that the alleged assault occurred. Habba briefly charged Bakara with misdemeanor trespassing but dropped the charges against him at the same time she opted to move forward with charging McIver. (Bakara is now suing Habba, alleging she 'violated his Fourth Amendment right against false arrest and malicious prosecution.')
The ambiguities involved mean that the Justice Department doesn't have a particularly strong case against McIver. But Habba is no stranger to putting her name on even dubious legal efforts. She first entered Trump's orbit in 2021, representing him in a lawsuit against the Times seeking $100 million in damages for alleged defamation. A judge tossed out the case entirely and later ordered Trump to pay the Times nearly $400,000 in legal fees. Nor did the results go her way in the next few civil cases she argued for him, including the E. Jean Carroll defamation case and New York's fraud case against Trump and his businesses.
If anything, Habba's reputation with Trump then wasn't for winning cases but for outspokenly defending him on television. During the New York criminal election interference case, which resulted in a guilty verdict against Trump on 31 counts, she was representing the former president not in court but on the airwaves and the steps outside the court. It's as a legal spokesperson that she arguably had the greatest success, enough that she was reportedly under consideration to become White House press secretary.
It's fitting, then, that Habba might not even stick around to complete the case against McIver. Because she is an interim U.S. attorney without Senate confirmation, her position expires 120 days after her appointment. But faithfully arguing the law was never her top priority. It's attacking Trump's enemies in the court of public opinion.
And as far as her boss is concerned, an indictment against a sitting congresswoman is sure to be a feather in her cap. Even if the charges against McIver are dropped, she'll have proved her willingness to go for the jugular in the name of crafting a political narrative. But Democratic lawmakers should be suitably unimpressed — and undeterred — by Habba and her ilk's legal bullying.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
29 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Gavin Newsom Reacts to Donald Trump's 'Unprecedented' Medicaid Move
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom has expressed concern for the privacy of immigrants in his state, following reports that the Trump administration has shared Medicaid data with immigration officials. An internal memo and emails obtained by the Associated Press showed that Medicaid officials unsuccessfully sought to block the data transfer, citing legal and ethical concerns. Nevertheless, two top advisers to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered the dataset handed over to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the emails show. Officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) were given just 54 minutes on Tuesday to comply with the directive. "We deeply value the privacy of all Californians," Newsom's office told Newsweek in a statement. "This action by the federal government has implications for every person on Medicaid, but it is especially alarming for our immigrants and American mixed-status families who are already under relentless, indiscriminate attack by this administration. The federal government continues to instill fear across this nation and shroud its continued violation of Americans' privacy rights in propaganda." Newsweek reached out to DHS and the Department for Health and Human Services for comment via email and contact form Friday afternoon. California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer granted an emergency temporary restraining order to stop President Donald Trump's deployment of the California National Guard, on June 12, 2025, at the California... California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer granted an emergency temporary restraining order to stop President Donald Trump's deployment of the California National Guard, on June 12, 2025, at the California State Supreme Court building in San Francisco. More Santiago Mejia/San Francisco Chronicle via AP Why It Matters Reports of increased data sharing between federal agencies for the purpose of immigration enforcement have caused concerns for several weeks. The Trump administration has said the data is vital in finding illegal immigrants who should be deported. What To Know The dataset included the information of people living in California, Illinois, Washington state and Washington, D.C., all of which allow non-U.S. citizens to enroll in Medicaid programs that pay for their expenses using only state taxpayer dollars. CMS transferred the information just as the Trump administration was ramping up its enforcement efforts in Southern California. Newsom's office said it was concerned about how deportation officials might utilize the data, especially as federal authorities conduct immigration raids with the assistance of National Guard troops and Marines in Los Angeles. Besides helping authorities locate migrants, experts said, the government could also use the information to scuttle the hopes of migrants seeking green cards, permanent residency or citizenship if they had ever obtained Medicaid benefits funded by the federal government. CMS announced late last month that it was reviewing some states' Medicaid enrollees to ensure federal funds have not been used to pay for coverage for people with "unsatisfactory immigration status." In a letter sent to state Medicaid officials, CMS said that the effort was part of Trump's February 19 executive order titled "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders." As part of the review, California, Washington and Illinois shared details about non-U.S. citizens who have enrolled in their state's Medicaid program, according to a June 6 memo signed by Medicaid Deputy Director Sara Vitolo that was obtained by AP. The memo was written by several CMS officials under Vitolo's supervision, according to sources familiar with the process. The data includes addresses, names, Social Security numbers and claims data for enrollees in those states, according to the memo and two people familiar with what the states sent to CMS. Both people spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to share details about the data exchange. CMS officials attempted to fight the data sharing request from Homeland Security, saying that complying would violate federal laws, including the Social Security Act and the Privacy Act of 1974, according to Vitolo's memo. "Multiple federal statutory and regulatory authorities do not permit CMS to share this information with entities outside of CMS," Vitolo wrote, further explaining that the sharing of such personal data is allowed only for directly administering the Medicaid program. Sharing information about Medicaid applicants or enrollees with DHS officials would violate a "longstanding policy," wrote Vitolo, a career employee, to Trump appointee Kim Brandt, deputy administrator and chief operating officer of CMS. The legal arguments outlined in the memo were not persuasive to Trump appointees at HHS, which oversees Medicaid. Four days after the memo was sent, on June 10, HHS officials directed the transfer of "the data to DHS by 5:30 ET today," according to email exchanges obtained by AP. Former government officials said the move was unusual because CMS, which has access to personal health data for nearly half of the country, does not typically share such sensitive information with other departments. "DHS has no role in anything related to Medicaid," said Jeffrey Grant, a former career employee at CMS. Beyond her legal arguments, Vitolo said sharing the information with DHS could have a chilling effect on states, perhaps prompting them to withhold information. States, she added, needed to guard against the "legal risk" they were taking by giving federal officials data that could be shared with deportation officials. A 'Concerning' Development All states must legally provide emergency Medicaid services to non-U.S. citizens, including to those who are lawfully present but have not yet met a five-year wait to apply for Medicaid. Seven states, along with the District of Columbia, allow immigrants who are not living legally in the country to enroll—with full benefits—in their state's Medicaid program. The states launched these programs during the Biden administration and said they would not bill the federal government to cover those immigrants' health care costs. The Trump administration has raised doubts about that pledge. Nixon said that the state's Medicaid programs for immigrants "opened the floodgates for illegal immigrants to exploit Medicaid—and forced hard-working Americans to foot the bill." All of the states—California, New York, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, Minnesota and Colorado—have Democratic governors. As a result of his state's budget woes, Newsom announced earlier this year that he would freeze enrollment in the program. Illinois will shut down its program for roughly 30,000 non-U.S. citizens in July. The remaining states have not yet submitted the identifiable data to CMS as part of the review, according to a public health official who has reviewed CMS' requests to the states. What People Are Saying U.S. Health and Human Services spokesman Andrew Nixon told AP that the data sharing was legal: "With respect to the recent data sharing between CMS and DHS, HHS acted entirely within its legal authority—and in full compliance with all applicable laws—to ensure that Medicaid benefits are reserved for individuals who are lawfully entitled to receive them." California Governor Gavin Newsom's office, in a statement sent to Newsweek: "Sharing Medicaid beneficiary information with the Department of Homeland Security—which is itself legally dubious—will jeopardize the safety, health, and security of those who will undoubtedly be targeted by this abuse, and Americans more broadly. "Federal law requires emergency care to be provided to all to save lives, and the federal government helps pay for it for low-income individuals, regardless of immigration status. Every state should be concerned about this data sharing and its implications for the safety and health of its communities. We will continue to vigorously defend Californians' privacy rights and explore all avenues to protect their information and safety." What Happens Next Republicans in Congress are continuing to look to limit undocumented immigrants from accessing federal programs while continuing to scrutinize whether sanctuary jurisdictions allow them to receive benefits. This article contains reporting by The Associated Press.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge blocks Trump's firing of Consumer Product Safety Commission members
BALTIMORE (AP) — A federal judge has blocked the terminations of three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission after they were fired by President Donald Trump in his effort to assert more power over independent federal agencies. The commission helps protect consumers from dangerous products by issuing recalls, suing errant companies and more. Trump announced last month his decision to fire the three Democrats on the five-member commission. They were serving seven-year terms after being nominated by President Joe Biden. After suing the Trump administration last month, the fired commissioners received a ruling in their favor Friday; it will likely be appealed. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued the case was clearcut. Federal statute states that the president can fire commissioners 'for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause' — allegations that have not been made against the commissioners in question. But attorneys for the Trump administration assert that the statute is unconstitutional because the president's authority extends to dismissing federal employees who 'exercise significant executive power,' according to court filings. U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox agreed with the plaintiffs, declaring their dismissals unlawful. He had previously denied their request for a temporary restraining order, which would have reinstated them on an interim basis. That decision came just days after the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority declined to reinstate board members of two other independent agencies, endorsing a robust view of presidential power. The court said that the Constitution appears to give the president the authority to fire the board members 'without cause.' Its three liberal justices dissented. In his written opinion filed Friday, Maddox presented a more limited view of the president's authority, finding 'no constitutional defect' in the statute that prohibits such terminations. He ordered that the plaintiffs be allowed to resume their duties as product safety commissioners. The ruling adds to a larger ongoing legal battle over a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey's Executor. In that case from 1935, the court unanimously held that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause. The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the airwaves and much else. But it has long rankled conservative legal theorists who argue the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong because such agencies should answer to the president. During a hearing before Maddox last week, arguments focused largely on the nature of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and its powers, specifically whether it exercises 'substantial executive authority.' Maddox, a Biden nominee, noted the difficulty of cleanly characterizing such functions. He also noted that Trump was breaking from precedent by firing the three commissioners, rather than following the usual process of making his own nominations when the opportunity arose. Abigail Stout, an attorney representing the Trump administration, argued that any restrictions on the president's removal power would violate his constitutional authority. After Trump announced the Democrats' firings, four Democratic U.S. senators sent a letter to the president urging him to reverse course. 'This move compromises the ability of the federal government to apply data-driven product safety rules to protect Americans nationwide, away from political influence,' they wrote. The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created in 1972. Its five members must maintain a partisan split, with no more than three representing the president's party. They serve staggered terms. That structure ensures that each president has 'the opportunity to influence, but not control,' the commission, attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in court filings. They argued the recent terminations could jeopardize the commission's independence. Attorney Nick Sansone, who represents the three commissioners, praised the ruling Friday. 'Today's opinion reaffirms that the President is not above the law,' he said in a statement.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
No Kings protest in Chicago: Rally against Trump to hit downtown tomorrow
The Brief A national protest movement called "No Kings" will bring a large rally and march to downtown Chicago on Saturday, coinciding with Flag Day and President Donald Trump's birthday. Organized by Indivisible Chicago and ACLU Illinois, the event is part of a nationwide day of action denouncing what organizers call authoritarianism and corruption under Trump. The Chicago rally at Daley Plaza will feature speakers and a two-mile march, with similar demonstrations planned across all 50 states. CHICAGO - A large-scale protest denouncing President Donald Trump will take place in downtown Chicago Saturday as part of a national day of action called "No Kings." What we know Organized by Indivisible Chicago and ACLU Illinois, the No Kings rally and march will run from noon to 2 p.m. at Daley Plaza, located at 50 W. Washington St. The march route, which is about two miles long, will not be announced in advance. Organizers said the demonstration, which coincides with Trump's birthday and Flag Day, is meant to reject "corruption, cruelty and the abuse of power." The protest is one of many being held across the country on Saturday with groups accusing Trump of defying democracy and cutting public services. "America has no king," organizers wrote on their website. "For anyone who thinks he's gone too far, this movement is for you." At least two large protests were held this week in downtown Chicago. On Tuesday, hundreds of people flocked downtown to protest ICE raids across the country. While the protests were mostly nonviolent earlier in the afternoon, there were some brief clashes between protesters and officers. Police squad cars were vandalized and there was one instance in which a car drove through the crowd amid rolling street closures. Seventeen people were arrested, including three people who allegedly struck Chicago police officers. On Thursday, hundreds of protesters took to the streets of Chicago for an anti-ICE demonstration—shutting down Michigan Avenue during rush hour. Unlike Tuesday's protest, however, things remained peaceful with no arrests, according to police. Led by the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR), the crowd took to Michigan Avenue, marching north until they reached Wacker Drive. As they rounded the corner, Wabash Avenue was blocked by salt trucks and fencing, which prevented demonstrators from getting any closer to Trump Tower. Dig deeper The "No Kings" theme was orchestrated by the 50501 Movement, a national movement made up of everyday Americans who stand for democracy and against what they call the authoritarian actions of the Trump administration. The name 50501 stands for 50 states, 50 protests, one movement. The No Kings Day of Defiance has been organized to reject authoritarianism, billionaire-first politics and the militarization of the country's democracy, according to a press release from No Kings. The No Kings Day of Defiance is expected to be the largest single-day mobilization since Trump returned to office, organizers said. Organizers said they are preparing for millions of people to take to the streets across all 50 states and commonwealths. Earlier protests organized by 50501 had rallied against Trump and his former billionaire adviser Elon Musk, who led Trump's Department of Government Efficiency to cut federal spending. The Source The information in this report came from Indivisible Chicago, the 5051 Movement and FOX Local.
