|
| LaMonica McIver Is One Step Closer to Trial |
| The ruling was expected, but the congresswoman is not backing down |
| This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied a bid by Rep. LaMonica McIver to dismiss the criminal case against her on the theory that she is immune from criminal prosecution over events that occurred while she was engaged in congressional oversight at Delaney Hall in Newark. In a 2-1 ruling, the court held that the allegations against McIver — that she assaulted federal immigration agents — fall outside of the zone of immunity for members of Congress. | | In a call with the media yesterday, McIver said that she was disappointed by the result but remained steadfast in her resolve to oppose the administration’s effort to prosecute her. Her lawyer, Paul Fishman, said that they are still considering their appellate options, including seeking a rehearing before the same panel of judges, petitioning for en banc review by the whole court, or going to the Supreme Court. | | The ruling was not surprising. McIver faced an uphill battle on this argument given the state of the law in this area, and the odds of success through further review do not seem better. | | If McIver forgoes additional pretrial review, the case will go back to the district court, and a trial could occur sometime next year. | | I expect the Justice Department to lose the trial if it happens. The whole case is an elaborate effort to scapegoat McIver after federal agents at Delaney Hall created chaos on the scene through their own ineptitude. I would frankly be shocked if a jury in New Jersey convicted her of anything. | | Still, the case is a disgrace — not only because McIver is being forced to spend time and money on it, but because of the broader message that it sends. | | Three people have died at Delaney Hall, but there is no indication that the Trump administration is investigating those deaths — or even cares. There is also no indication that the administration is doing anything to investigate the deaths of the other people who have died at the hands of federal immigration agents since Trump returned to office. | | The Justice Department is spending far more time, energy, and taxpayer money prosecuting McIver than it is investigating actual deaths at the hands of federal law enforcement. |
|
|
| See Also: Immigration Enforcement |
| Other relevant items |
| |
|
|
| The Trump DOJ Has a New Litigation Tactic |
| There was already political blackmail. Now there’s extortion? |
| The Trump administration this week agreed to hold off on adding Trump’s name to the Kennedy Center after a court hearing in a case challenging the plans. | | The hearing did not go well for the government, which was not surprising if you happened to read the brief that the Justice Department filed earlier in the week. | | In it, the Trump administration basically threatened to demolish the Kennedy Center if it doesn’t get what it wants. According to the DOJ, “the Center will deteriorate further into an unsafe, decrepit structure that will be required to be taken down, with a determination to follow on what to build on the site, such as a large outdoor amphitheater.” Give them what they want, or the result will be “the continued decline and eventual demise of the Kennedy Center, probably leading to the construction of a new, but very different kind, of venue.” | | The Trump DOJ is very comfortable using political blackmail with the courts — recall the tariff litigation last year and, more recently, the ballroom case — but this appears to be a new gambit even for them. This time around, they are holding the Kennedy Center hostage and threatening to shoot it. | | This is another instance of incredibly bad lawyering. Not surprisingly, the only person who signed the brief for the DOJ was a Republican lawyer and political appointee who appears to have virtually no experience in court. It shows. |
|
|
| Exhibit A: The Bar Complaint Against Jeanine Pirro |
| A document of significant interest |
| | This week, the Legal Accountability Center filed a bar complaint against Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney in Washington, D.C., and two of her deputies. | | There are many things to criticize about Pirro’s tenure, but the complaint cleverly zeroes in on just one: the failed effort to indict six Democratic members of Congress over a video that encouraged members of the military to ignore illegal orders. | | Under ethical rules, prosecutors are not supposed to pursue a case that lacks probable cause. In this case, the evidence on that score is about as good as it gets, both because the case was meritless from the start and, perhaps more importantly, because literally zero grand jurors agreed to return the proposed indictment — something that I have never heard happen before. | | The usual caveats apply — bar investigations are long and uncertain, and in this case, the Justice Department is likely to try to stonewall any investigation — but the theory is a good one. |
|
|
| Objection: A Lazy Critique of Legal Journalists |
| Another perspective |
| | It’s the end of August, and columnists like to enjoy the summer too. This means that, right around this time of year, they publish pieces that they have been sitting on and waiting to dump or that they have tossed off quickly enough to enjoy their vacations. | | That is the best way to make sense of a column today by a Wall Street Journal columnist who issued a broad-brush attack against legal journalists reporting on the Trump administration. | | “The media’s contribution to lawfare began in the earliest days of the first Trump term and has become only more brazen,” the columnist writes. “The swings and misses are there for all to see, every day. Yet the formula is now so routine that nobody pushes back.” | | I am all for criticizing legal analysts when it is appropriate, so I read the piece with interest. There are broadsides against “the press,” the “state of legal reporting,” and “the country’s ace legal reporters.” There are sweeping complaints about coverage of the legal cases involving the Trump administration — that legal journalists routinely “omit any critical analysis of standing, jurisdiction, merits or precedent”; that it’s part of a “cynical game — jerryrigged reporting to give life to lawfare and to set false expectations, the better to smear legal grown-ups”; and that “we know this misreporting is intentional.” | | These are strong and provocative claims, but the writer does not cite a single example. She complains about coverage of the ballroom case, but there is no mention of a particular story, reporter, or even outlet. The “swings and misses are there for all to see, every day,” and apparently it’s so obvious that you don’t even have to offer evidence to prove it. | | “Where are the professional media critics when you need them?” the writer asks at the end. | | Good question. |
|
|
| The Docket |
| What else to read in national legal affairs |
| |
|
|
| Off the Record |
| Some non-legal items that caught my eye |
| |
|
| Was this forwarded to you? |
| Sharp, plain-English analysis of the law behind the news — free, in your inbox. |
|
|
|
