Staff Reports
In a development that has sparked outrage across the political spectrum, Sophie Roske, the individual who attempted to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2022, has been sentenced to just over eight years in prison—a far cry from the 30-year sentence sought by federal prosecutors. Roske, who now identifies as a transgender woman, was arrested near Kavanaugh's residence with weapons and admitted to planning to kill multiple conservative justices. Despite the grave nature of the crime, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman credited Roske’s spontaneous confession to police, cooperation, lack of prior criminal record, and expressed remorse, which factored into the comparatively lenient sentence.
Federal prosecutors characterized Roske's actions as a premeditated, cold-blooded terrorist attempt to alter the constitutional order through violence, underscoring the danger such political violence poses to American democracy. Yet, Judge Boardman’s decision reflected mitigating factors, including Roske’s mental health struggles and the fact that the attempt was interrupted before violence occurred. The judge expressed hope that the sentence conveys the serious consequences of threatening the judiciary.
Judge Kavanaugh’s would-be assassin gets 8 years for trying to k!ll a Supreme Court justice. Prosecutors were asking for 30 years. This Biden appointed judge made the case about trans acceptance.
MAKE IT MAKE SENSE‼️We still live in 🤡 🌎 pic.twitter.com/tcJqgDesBU— 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕷𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖊𝖘𝖘™️ (@CL4WS_OUT) October 6, 2025
Attorney General Pam Bondi has publicly criticized the sentence as "woefully insufficient" and announced plans to appeal, emphasizing that the attempted murder of a Supreme Court justice demands a stiffer penalty. The sentencing has reignited debate about judicial leniency, especially when it comes to crimes involving threats against high-profile conservative figures. Many conservatives see the eight-year term as indicative of a justice system influenced more by identity politics and compassion than by the need to protect national institutions and public safety.
The contrast between the sentencing recommendation by prosecutors and the judge’s final decision highlights ongoing conflicts in the judiciary about how to balance justice, public safety, and offender rehabilitation. Meanwhile, this case serves as a sobering reminder of the increased threats faced by public officials amid growing political polarization. The call for tougher, consistent judicial responses to such violence is gaining urgency in the wake of this controversial sentence.
