Justice Department to Appeal Light Sentence in Kavanaugh Assassination Attempt
The Department of Justice has announced plans to appeal what Attorney General Pam Bondi called a “woefully insufficient” eight-year prison sentence given to Nicholas Roske, who attempted to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in June 2022. The sentence, handed down by Biden-appointed Maryland US District Judge Deborah Boardman, fell far short of the 30 years to life prosecutors had requested for what Bondi described as “a disgusting attack against our entire judicial system.” The case has sparked debate about the appropriate punishment for politically motivated violence targeting government officials, particularly those in the judicial branch, and raises questions about how factors such as mental health and gender identity should be weighed in sentencing decisions.
The circumstances surrounding the assassination attempt are deeply troubling. Roske, a 29-year-old from California, arrived outside Justice Kavanaugh’s Maryland home armed with a Glock 17 pistol, ammunition, tactical equipment, zip ties, pepper spray, and burglary tools—clear evidence of premeditation and deadly intent. Only the presence of US Marshals outside the residence caused Roske to reconsider, walking down the street and eventually calling 911 to report having suicidal and homicidal thoughts. Federal investigators later discovered that Roske’s motivation stemmed from anger over the leaked draft decision that would eventually overturn Roe v. Wade, with Roske admitting in encrypted messages that he planned to target multiple justices to alter Supreme Court decisions “for decades to come.”
The prosecution argued forcefully that the severity of the crime demanded a substantial sentence, emphasizing that Roske’s actions represented not just an attack on Kavanaugh personally, but on judicial independence and constitutional order. “The sentence imposed in this case must send the powerful message, both to the defendant and to others who contemplate committing assassination to obstruct judicial independence, that these ends never justify the means and that the consequences are not worth engaging in these acts,” prosecutors wrote in their sentencing memo. The Justice Department’s decision to appeal signals their belief that an eight-year sentence fails to reflect the gravity of plotting to assassinate a Supreme Court Justice and undermines deterrence against future politically motivated attacks.
The defense strategy centered on Roske’s mental health struggles, voluntary surrender, and cooperation with law enforcement after the aborted attack. During the proceedings, the defense began referring to their client as “Sophie” and using female pronouns, explaining that Roske had privately come out as transgender in 2020 and has been undergoing gender-reassignment procedures since being incarcerated. Defense attorneys argued that Roske’s “history of mental illness,” including suicidal thoughts and at least one attempt, should be considered mitigating factors, and expressed concern about the “harshness of the conditions of confinement” for a transgender inmate in federal prison, particularly under the Trump administration’s policies regarding transgender prisoners. In court, Roske apologized to Justice Kavanaugh, his family, other Supreme Court members, and the public “for contributing to a trend of political violence in American politics,” adding, “I can see now how destructive and misguided such acts are, and am ashamed to have not recognized these things sooner.”
Judge Boardman’s decision to impose just eight years—exactly what the defense requested—has proven controversial, particularly given the calculated nature of the assassination plot. During sentencing, Boardman expressed sympathy for Roske as “a transgender woman” who would face challenges in the federal prison system, including being “assigned to a facility according to the gender of their birth.” This consideration of Roske’s transgender status and related concerns about prison conditions appears to have significantly influenced the judge’s sentencing decision, alongside Roske’s mental health history and post-arrest cooperation.
The case highlights the tension between accountability for political violence and considerations of mental health and individual circumstances. While many legal experts acknowledge that factors such as mental illness and personal history should influence sentencing, others argue that the gravity of attempting to assassinate a Supreme Court Justice—particularly with the explicit aim of changing judicial outcomes—demands severe consequences regardless of mitigating personal factors. As the Justice Department moves forward with its appeal, the case will continue to raise important questions about how our legal system balances punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and individual circumstances when addressing politically motivated violence at the highest levels of government. Whatever the outcome, this case will likely influence how similar threats against public officials are prosecuted and sentenced in an era of heightened political polarization and violence.
