INSUFFICIENT! Ridiculous Term for Kavanaugh Plotter

Exterior view of the Supreme Court of Florida with columns and palm trees

A lenient sentence for a would-be assassin threatens judicial integrity, stirring outrage among conservatives nationwide.

Story Snapshot

An 8-year sentence for Kavanaugh’s attempted assassin is seen as insufficient.
The DOJ plans to appeal, calling the sentence “woefully insufficient.”
The case raises concerns about judicial safety and deterrence.
Conservative figures criticize the leniency shown by the judge.

Attempted Assassination and Sentencing

In June 2022, Nicholas Roske traveled from California to Maryland with the intent to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Armed with a firearm and tactical gear, Roske called 911 on himself upon seeing U.S. Marshals outside Kavanaugh’s residence. By April 2025, he pleaded guilty to attempted assassination. The sentence handed down in October 2025 was 97 months, or just over eight years, with lifetime supervised release. This lenient sentence has sparked controversy and is far less than the 30 years sought by federal prosecutors.

Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice criticized the sentence, arguing it fails to reflect the severity of the crime and endangers judicial safety. The DOJ announced its intent to appeal the sentence, emphasizing that it undermines deterrence and the independence of the judiciary. This case highlights the risks faced by public officials amid escalating political tensions, especially following the leak of the Supreme Court’s draft opinion on the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case.

Judicial Implications and Reactions

The lenient sentencing has drawn significant backlash from conservative circles who argue it sets a dangerous precedent for judicial security. Critics emphasize that the sentence does not deter future threats against public officials adequately. The DOJ’s decision to appeal reflects a broader concern for maintaining the integrity of the judicial system and ensuring that threats against justices are met with appropriate consequences. Many conservatives view the sentence as a failure to uphold judicial independence and safety.

Judge Deborah Boardman, who presided over the sentencing, has been criticized for her decision. She credited Roske’s self-reporting as a mitigating factor, alongside his mental health struggles. However, this has not mollified critics who argue that the gravity of attempting to assassinate a sitting Supreme Court Justice demands a more severe penalty. The leniency shown is seen as potentially emboldening future threats.

Long-Term Consequences and Political Ramifications

The implications of Roske’s sentencing extend beyond immediate legal outcomes. In the short term, it has intensified scrutiny on the security measures for justices and the sentencing practices for threats against public officials. Long-term, it could lead to changes in sentencing guidelines and increased protective measures for members of the judiciary. The political fallout continues, with conservative figures calling for stricter penalties and enhanced security protocols to safeguard judicial independence and deter similar threats.

The case highlights ongoing political polarization concerning judicial decisions and the safety of those involved in the legal system. As the DOJ’s appeal progresses, the discourse around judicial security and the adequacy of sentences for crimes of this nature will likely remain a focal point for public debate.