Representative LaMonica McIver of New Jersey appeared in federal court for the first time this week after being charged by the U.S. Department of Justice in connection with an alleged physical confrontation involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

The Democratic congresswoman, who represents New Jersey’s 10th Congressional District, attended the hearing virtually from Washington, D.C. During the proceeding, a federal judge ordered McIver to surrender any firearms in her possession and placed restrictions on her international travel. She is not permitted to leave the United States unless travel is required for official congressional duties, and even then must notify federal authorities in advance. These conditions will remain in effect at least until her preliminary hearing, which is scheduled for June 11.

McIver was released on her own recognizance after being formally advised of her rights. Prosecutors allege that she assaulted federal officers during a May 9 incident at Delaney Hall, a detention facility in Newark that had recently reopened to house migrants. If convicted, McIver could face several years in federal prison and substantial financial penalties, with potential fines reaching as high as $250,000.

According to federal court filings, investigators relied on body camera footage and aerial surveillance to support the charges. The complaint claims McIver forcefully struck a uniformed Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agent with her forearm and attempted to restrain the agent by grabbing him during a tense encounter. Authorities argue that her actions went beyond lawful protest or congressional oversight and amounted to interference with federal officers performing their duties.

McIver has strongly denied the allegations. Speaking publicly after the charges were announced, she characterized the case as politically driven and accused ICE agents of unnecessarily escalating the situation. In interviews, she maintained that she was present in her official capacity as a member of Congress and insisted that her actions were lawful and appropriate.

Calling the charges “absurd,” McIver said that criminalizing her conduct sends a troubling signal about the state of democracy in the United States. “I was there to do my job,” she said, adding that prosecuting an elected official for oversight activity reflects a dangerous direction for the country.

The case has also become a flashpoint in broader political debate. Conservative outlets reported that McIver has begun fundraising in response to the indictment, framing the prosecution as discriminatory and racially motivated. Her supporters argue that the charges are an attempt to intimidate Democratic lawmakers who challenge federal immigration enforcement policies.

Federal officials have pushed back forcefully against that narrative. Acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba defended the decision to pursue felony charges, emphasizing that no individual is above the law. Habba stated that the case has nothing to do with politics or congressional authority, but instead centers on alleged violence against federal agents.

“This is about respecting the rule of law and protecting those who put themselves in harm’s way to enforce it,” Habba said, rejecting claims that the prosecution was retaliatory or partisan in nature.

The confrontation that led to McIver’s charges occurred during a protest involving several Democratic officials, including Newark Mayor Ras Baraka. The group sought to oppose the reopening of the migrant detention center and reportedly forced their way into the facility. Baraka was arrested at the scene on a misdemeanor trespassing charge, though prosecutors later dropped the case.

That decision drew sharp criticism from U.S. Magistrate Judge Andre Espinosa during a separate hearing. Espinosa described Baraka’s arrest as a troubling error and faulted prosecutors for moving too quickly without sufficient legal grounding. He dismissed the trespassing charge with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled.

In a pointed rebuke, Espinosa reminded the government that its role is not to pursue cases for political reasons or public pressure, but to apply the law impartially. He characterized the dismissal as an embarrassing outcome for federal prosecutors and warned against allowing political considerations to influence charging decisions.

While the charges against Baraka are now closed, McIver’s legal situation remains unresolved. Her upcoming preliminary hearing will determine whether the case proceeds toward trial. As the legal process unfolds, the case is likely to remain highly visible, touching on issues of immigration enforcement, political protest, and the boundaries of congressional authority.

For now, McIver continues to serve in Congress while contesting the charges, insisting that she will fight what she views as an unjust prosecution. Whether the evidence ultimately supports the government’s claims will be decided in federal court in the weeks ahead.