The chilling problem with the decision to charge New Jersey Rep. LaMonica McIver
Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., a sitting member of Congress, was released on her own recognizance following a Wednesday hearing. She faces federal charges in connection with the assault of federal law enforcement officers outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Newark, New Jersey. That she was arrested on these charges is rare, and perhaps without a historical analog. In the few instances in which the federal government has pursued charges against a current member of Congress, it is typically for a crime related to political corruption.
There's little question, per video footage from the May 9 incident, that McIver was in the middle of a scrum of people seeking to stop the arrest of Newark's mayor, Ras J. Baraka, and enter the ICE facility. As a sitting member of Congress, McIver has the legal right to enter the facility, although she — of course — does not have the right to assault federal officers on the way in.
But what people should know is that something is amiss with the decision to charge McIver. Before bringing charges against a sitting member of Congress, current, but paused, Department of Justice rules dictate that federal prosecutors confer with the Public Integrity Section. In addition, that section is supposed to sign off before charges are filled.
But apparently none of that happened. Published reports indicate that members of the administration told the Public Integrity Section to halt its consultations with other federal prosecutors while they review DOJ rules. Here, we see members of the executive branch pausing the typical procedures meant to protect sitting members of the legislative branch.
Part of what the Public Integrity Section does is ensure that if charges are brought against sitting members of Congress, they are brought for legal reasons, not political ones. Members of Congress serve as an important check against the executive; they should not be chilled into eschewing their oversight authority. Quite the opposite, members of the legislative branch must feel confident that they can carry out their functions as the leaders of a co-equal branch, and that political appointees will not weaponize the DOJ against them when they do. This is exactly what the Public Integrity Section was designed to guard against.
Perhaps, if the Public Integrity Section were consulted, they would have pointed to a potential constitutional hurdle related to this prosecution. The 'speech or debate' clause in the Constitution is designed to support the independence of the legislative branch by giving members of Congress immunity from criminal or civil suit for actions taken while engaged in legislative activities, including oversight activities. The DOJ will almost certainly argue that McIver's behavior transgressed the bounds of legitimate legislative activities.
The apparently paused DOJ rule which dictates that the Public Integrity Section be consulted prior to filing the type of charges filed against McIver, and the 'speech or debate' clause, both act as a bulwark against the prosecution of members of the Legislature for doing their jobs.
The thing we should worry about is that the specter of being on the receiving end of a federal criminal complaint will chill the legitimate activities of the members of our legislative branch. We don't want a government designed to stand on three legs to end up teetering on two.
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
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
New questions emerge from the new charges in Kilmar Abrego Garcia case
The sudden return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States on Friday to face federal charges of smuggling migrants across the country was a messaging triumph for the Trump administration. The news deflected public attention from a series of unanimous court rulings—including a Supreme Court decision—that President Donald Trump did not have the power to unilaterally detain and deport individuals to foreign prisons without a review by a judge. And the allegations against Abrego Garcia are damning. A federal grand jury found that the 29-year-old was an MS-13 member who transported thousands of undocumented immigrants, including children, from Texas to states across the country for profit for nine years. He allegedly also transported firearms and drugs, abused female migrants and was linked to an incident in Mexico where a tractor-trailer overturned and killed 50 migrants. Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, a lawyer representing Abrego-Garcia, said Saturday that he planned to meet his client for the first time on Sunday, but declined to further comment. A former senior law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity, citing fear of retaliation, said he was struck by the large amount of resources the DOJ put into investigating Abrego Garcia. 'It is odd that they would use all of these folks to go after a low-level driver,' said the official. 'Usually, we used the driver to go after the coyotes and up if we could. But they really wanted to get this guy and it looks like they found a path.' In a telephone interview with NBC News's Kristen Welker on Saturday, Trump hailed Abrego Garcia's indictment and predicted it would be easy for federal prosecutors to convict him. 'I think it should be,' he said. 'It should be.' Multiple questions about Abrego Garcia, the case against him, and the political fallout remain unanswered. For months, Abrego Garcia's lawyers, his wife, and some Democrats, have denied that he was an MS-13 gang member. They generally portrayed him as a Maryland construction worker and claimed he was transporting co-workers when a Tennessee state trooper stopped him on Interstate 40 on November 30, 2022. The indictment paints a different picture: Abrego Garcia was transporting nine Hispanic males without identification or luggage in a Chevrolet Suburban. Prosecutors allege he 'knowingly and falsely' told the trooper they 'had been in St. Louis for two weeks doing construction' and were returning to Maryland. However, license plate reader data showed that the Suburban had not been near St. Louis for twelve months. Instead, it had been in Houston where, according to prosecutors, Abrego Garcia had picked up the men. The vehicle was not carrying tools or construction equipment, but its rear cargo area had been modified with makeshift seating to transport more passengers. The apparent strength of the government's case could reignite debate among Democrats about the risks of focusing on Abrego Garcia's case. For weeks, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, and other Democrats emphasized that their criticism targeted Trump's decision to unilaterally deport Abrego Garcia without judicial oversight, not a defense of Abrego Garcia himself. When Welker asked about Van Hollen, President Trump mocked the Senator and said defending the Abrego Garcia would backfire on Democrats. 'He's a loser. The guy's a loser,' Trump said, referring to Van Hollen. 'They're going to lose because of that same thing. That's not what people want to hear. He's trying to defend a man who's got a horrible record of abuse, abuse of women in particular.' Van Hollen defended his stance in a CNN interview. 'You know, I will never apologize for defending the Constitution,' he said. 'In fact, it's the Trump administration and all his cronies who should apologize to the country for putting us through this unnecessary situation.' In an Oval Office visit on April 15, 2025, Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi and other Trump administration officials asserted that it was not possible for the Trump administration to 'facilitate' the return of Abrego Garcia's return from El Salvador as the Supreme Court had ordered. El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele mocked a reporter for asking whether he would do so.'How can I return him to the United States? Like if I smuggle him into the United States?' Bukele said, sitting beside Trump in the Oval Office. 'Of course I'm not going to do it. The question is preposterous.' Trump, in turn, chided the assembled journalists, saying, 'They'd love to have a criminal released into our country. These are sick people.' Bondi said only El Salvador could decide whether to return Bukele. 'If they want to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane,' said Bondi said. 'That's up for El Salvador if they want to return him. That's not up to us.' Yet, in a Friday press conference at the Justice Department, Bondi described the return of Abrego Garcia as smooth and seamless. 'We want to thank President Bukele for agreeing to return Abrego Garcia to the United States,' she said. 'Our government presented El Salvador with an arrest warrant, and they agreed to return him to our country.' Asked what had changed since the traffic stop in 2022, she lauded Trump. 'What has changed is Donald Trump is now president of the United States,' Bondi said, 'and our borders are again secure.' In an unusual move, Bondi also described allegations against Abrego Garcia that were not included in the indictment. She said that co-conspirators alleged that Abrego Garcia 'solicited nude photographs and videos of a minor' and 'played a role in the murder of a rival gang member's mother.' For decades, attorneys general from both parties and state and local prosecutors have generally accused defendants of crimes only for which a grand jury indicted them. Discussing other potential crimes has long been regarded as an abuse of prosecutorial power, risking unfair harm to defendants' reputations. A former senior Justice Department official, who requested anonymity, citing fears of retaliation, said that Bondi often speaks as a partisan Trump loyalist, not a neutral law enforcement official. 'She says the president's name every time,' said the former DOJ official. 'She talks more like a politician, stumping for a candidate than an attorney general who is out there talking independently. You can see that in the words she uses.' The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that people close to the matter said the indictment prompted the resignation of a veteran career prosecutor who headed the criminal division at the U.S. attorney's office where the case was filed. The Journal did not name the prosecutor. However, days after Abrego Garcia was indicted by a federal grand jury in Nashville, Ben Schrader, the head of criminal division in the U.S. Attorney's office in Nashville, resigned. 'Earlier today, after nearly 15 years as an Assistant United States Attorney, I resigned as Chief of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Tennessee,' Schrader posted on LinkedIn. 'It has been an incredible privilege to serve as a prosecutor with the Department of Justice, where the only job description I've ever known is to do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons. I wish all of my colleagues at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Nashville and across the Department the best as they seek to do justice on behalf of the American people.' Asked about Schrader's resignation by NBC News, a spokesperson for the Justice Department said it does not comment on personnel changes. Schrader, reached by NBC News via text on his cell phone, sent a two-word reply when asked why he had resigned: 'No comment.' This article was originally published on
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
As his trade war faces legal pushback, Trump has other tariff tools he could deploy
WASHINGTON - U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs are facing legal headwinds for the first time — but he has other tools he could deploy in his quest to realign global trade. A federal appeals court is still deciding whether there will be a stay on Trump's universal tariffs enacted through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, usually referred to by the acronym IEEPA. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled the duties were unlawful last month. IEEPA is a national security statute that gives the U.S. president authority to control economic transactions after declaring an emergency. It had never previously been used for tariffs. Trump declared emergencies at the United States' northern and southern borders linked to the flow of fentanyl and migrants in order to hit Canada and Mexico with economywide tariffs. He later declared an emergency over trade deficits to impose his retaliatory 'Liberation Day' duties on most nations. The trade court found Trump exceeded presidential powers by using IEEPA to broadly implement the duties. The Trump administration quickly appealed the decision and the White House said it would take the case to the Supreme Court. Following the ruling, White House Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said he was confident the court ultimately would decide in Trump's favour. Hassett said that if it doesn't, 'we'll have other alternatives that we can pursue as well to make sure that we make American trade fair again.' While the U.S. Constitution gives power over taxes and tariffs to Congress, Greta Peisch, the former general counsel for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, said it passed laws over the last century that allow the president some control in certain situations. Trump is now looking to use those laws — some of them for the first time. The president may be considering Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. It allows a president to hit countries with tariffs of up to 50 per cent if the country 'is treating products of the United States disfavourably, compared to products of another foreign country,' said Peisch, a partner at Wiley Rein in Washington, D.C. Section 338 has never been used by a president before and Peisch said it might be difficult for the administration to make a case for it. Trump also might look to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows a president to take trade actions if an investigation finds a trading partner's policies are unreasonable and discriminatory. Trump used this law during his first administration to impose tariffs on some Chinese imports and European Union goods. But Section 301 requires country-by-country investigations of trade policy before a tariff can be imposed — investigations that could take weeks or months and would include a period for public comment. That certainly would slow down Trump's efforts to target the world with tariffs. If the president is looking for speed, Peisch said, he might try to use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — another law that has never before been used. Section 122 allows a president to implement tariffs of up to 15 per cent to address large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits. But those duties can only stay in place for a maximum of 150 days before they need Congressional approval to continue. That reduces Trump's leverage if his goal is to pressure countries to sign trade deals — those countries could simply decide to wait the president out. Trump also has said tariffs will help pay down the deficit; the short-term Section 122 power is unlikely to work as a long-term revenue strategy. Ultimately, Peisch said, none of the replacement statutes could easily build Trump's universal tariff wall around the United States. 'Nothing is a great fit without a lot of work,' she said. 'So I think it's potentially going to be a challenge.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 7, 2025.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Democrats incite insurrection over lawful ICE raids
The party that loves to claim to stand 'the rule of law' proved themselves liars yet again. In response to Immigration and Customs Enforcement enforcing our nation's rules with raids in Southern California, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass encouraged insurrection. 'As Mayor of a proud city of immigrants, who contribute to our city in so many ways, I am deeply angered by what has taken place,' she said. 'These tactics sow terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of safety in our city. My Office is in close coordination with immigrant rights community organizations. We will not stand for this.' Advertisement With that incitement, the mob took to the streets, threw rocks at ICE agents and lit fires. Just as with the 'peaceful protests' of the George Floyd riots, officials were slow to respond — it took the LAPD two hours to mobilize. That's because the Democratic leadership of Los Angeles didn't want the assault to stop. Advertisement More than that: Democrats don't want our immigration laws to exist. They don't want our border to exist. It doesn't matter that this philosophy was soundly rejected in the last election. They will continue to act like these laws don't and shouldn't apply to them. From Newark to New York, Chicago to Los Angeles, Democrats are preaching anarchy, pretending like ICE agents don't have the right to arrest people who are here illegally. Advertisement For four years, President Biden broke the law. He introduced various amnesties and apps, with no permission from Congress, to usher in 10 million illegal immigrants. Now Democrats are shocked, shocked, that President Trump is reversing this unlawful decision. Remember that the next time Democrats lecture about ignoring judges and the Constitution. They only believe the laws they want to.
