Newark Mayor Fights to Keep Lawsuit Against Federal Officials Alive

Newark Mayor Ras Baraka is pushing back against federal prosecutors’ attempts to dismiss his lawsuit alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution, arguing that federal immunity doctrines should not shield the officials involved in his controversial detention.

In a letter filed Tuesday with the federal court, Baraka’s attorney Yael Bromberg called the prosecutors’ immunity claims “breathtaking in its presumption that these actions can escape any accountability by the third branch of government.”

“The Defendants are liable for violating constitutional rights,” Bromberg wrote, challenging assertions that acting U.S. Attorney Alina Habba and Department of Homeland Security investigator Ricky Patel are protected by qualified and absolute immunity.

The lawsuit stems from a May 9 incident when Baraka was arrested for trespassing at a Newark immigrant detention facility operated by Geo Group. The mayor, a Democrat, maintains he was there conducting an official inspection with city officials when federal agents detained him.

Less than two weeks later, federal authorities abruptly dropped the charge against Baraka, a move that drew admonishment from the federal judge overseeing the case. Baraka’s legal team argues the charges were dismissed because authorities knew the mayor had committed no crime.

Police body camera footage, released as part of a separate federal case, appears to support key elements of Baraka’s account. The footage shows a Geo Group staffer allowing the mayor into a fenced area of the facility, where he remained for approximately 40 minutes before complying with agents’ requests to leave. In the footage, Patel is heard saying he was detaining Baraka “per the deputy attorney general of the United States.”

“Claims of malicious prosecution must show that the proceedings were initiated ‘without probable cause’ and that the defendants ‘acted maliciously for a purpose other than bringing the plaintiff to justice,'” Bromberg argued, citing a 2017 appeals court decision. “Those circumstances are immediately present here.”

The case has taken on political dimensions. When Habba announced she was dropping charges against Baraka, she simultaneously revealed charges against Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-10) for allegedly assaulting officers during the mayor’s arrest. McIver has characterized the case against her as politically motivated.

Habba has publicly claimed that Baraka “stormed the facility alongside a mob of protestors,” statements that form the basis of the mayor’s defamation and false light claims. Surveillance footage contradicts this narrative, showing protestors remained outside the facility’s gates while Baraka entered through official channels.

Attorneys for Habba and Patel signaled in September that they would seek dismissal of Baraka’s lawsuit, arguing he failed to exhaust administrative remedies through complaints to the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security. They also suggested he should have filed under the Federal Tort Claim Act, though Baraka’s legal team counters that his defamation and false light claims are state torts controlled by state law, not federal statutes.

The defense further argues that the United States, which enjoys broader civil immunity under federal law, should replace Habba and Patel as the defendant in the case.

Complicating matters is Habba’s contested status as acting U.S. Attorney. A federal judge ruled in August that her temporary appointment ended in July, effectively terminating her legal authority. The Trump administration contends it made personnel moves that extend her tenure by approximately six months. This separate dispute is scheduled to go before the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday.

The case highlights ongoing tensions between local officials and federal immigration authorities, as well as questions about accountability when public officials claim immunity protections. The court’s decision on whether to allow Baraka’s lawsuit to proceed could establish important precedent regarding the limits of federal immunity doctrines.