In the game of political privilege, some players assume they hold permanent immunity cards—golden tickets that transform assault into “oversight” and crimes into constitutional duties. But every so often, the house rules apply to everyone, even those who thought they’d rigged the game. That’s the hard lesson one New Jersey Democrat is learning as her political theater performance heads for its final act: a federal courtroom.
The story begins this past May at the Delaney Hall ICE detention facility in Newark, where a group of Democratic politicians decided to stage what they called “federal oversight.” Rep. LaMonica McIver, along with fellow Democrats Bonnie Watson Coleman, Robert Menendez, and Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, arrived at the facility with cameras and righteousness in tow. What followed wasn’t oversight—it was chaos. Federal agents were allegedly assaulted. Laws were allegedly broken. And now, months later, the bill has come due.
McIver faces three federal counts of assaulting, resisting, and impeding law enforcement officers. Two of those counts carry maximum sentences of up to eight years in prison. These aren’t parking tickets or campaign finance violations—these are serious federal charges stemming from what prosecutors say was criminal conduct, not legitimate congressional oversight. The Department of Homeland Security and Acting U.S. Attorney Alina Habba didn’t mince words when announcing the charges, and Secretary Kristi Noem made it crystal clear: “No one is above the law.”
This week, U.S. District Judge Jamel Semper—notably a Biden appointee—delivered the news McIver didn’t want to hear: her charges are going forward. The judge systematically dismantled her two main defenses. First, her claim of immunity under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, which protects members of Congress conducting official duties. Second, her assertion that the charges were politically motivated retribution. Both arguments crumbled under judicial scrutiny.
From Judge Semper’s ruling (via court documents):
The alleged criminal conduct did not occur during Defendant’s inspection of Delaney Hall, instead it occurred during an inexplicable delay of Defendant’s oversight inspection. Although Defendant bears no fault in the delay, her alleged intervention into the Mayor’s questionable arrest had no cognizable connection to any legislative function protected by the Speech or Debate Clause.
Let me translate what the judge is really saying here: Nice try, congresswoman, but assaulting cops doesn’t become “oversight” just because you say so. Since when does “I’m a congresswoman” become a valid defense for allegedly attacking federal agents? The distinction matters. Congressional oversight is a legitimate function; roughing up law enforcement officers is not.
What makes this case particularly rich with irony is the performative nature of the entire incident. Secretary Noem had actually invited officials to tour the facility properly just a month before this confrontation. Instead of accepting that invitation, these Democrats chose confrontation over cooperation, cameras over courtesy. (And really, who brings cameras to “oversight” unless they’re planning a show?) The result? Criminal charges instead of constructive dialogue.
Look, I’ve been watching this game for years. We see certain politicians operate as if the rules don’t apply to them—as if their political affiliation or righteous intentions somehow exempt them from the same laws that govern the rest of us. McIver apparently believed that shouting “oversight” while allegedly assaulting federal agents would somehow transform a crime into a constitutional right. The judge disagreed. Ask yourself—would you get away with assaulting a federal agent? Would your employer accept “I was conducting oversight” as an excuse?
This isn’t just about one congresswoman facing charges. It’s about whether we still have one system of justice or two—one for the politically connected and another for everyone else. For too long, Americans have watched politicians skate on serious charges while ordinary citizens face the full weight of the law for far less. McIver’s trial will test whether accountability still exists in our republic, regardless of party affiliation or political power. The fact that these charges are moving forward, despite her desperate legal maneuvering, offers a glimmer of hope that sometimes—just sometimes—the house rules really do apply to everyone at the table.
Sources: Breitbart, Washington Examiner
