Federal Judge Deborah Boardman, a Biden appointee, ignited a firestorm of debate on Friday, October 3, 2025, after sentencing Nicholas Roske—who now goes by Sophie—to eight years in prison for attempting to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The decision, rendered in a Maryland courtroom, comes more than three years after Roske was arrested outside Kavanaugh’s home in June 2022, just weeks before the Supreme Court’s landmark Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.
The case has become a lightning rod for national controversy, with critics from across the political spectrum weighing in on the sentence’s adequacy, the factors considered by Judge Boardman, and the broader implications for the U.S. judicial system. The Department of Justice (DOJ) had sought a far harsher penalty—at least 30 years in prison—while Roske’s defense team argued for an eight-year term, citing mitigating circumstances. In the end, Judge Boardman sided with the defense’s request, a move that has since been met with fierce pushback from conservative voices and prompted the DOJ to announce plans to appeal the sentence.
According to Fox News, Boardman explained her reasoning during the sentencing hearing, stating that while Roske’s actions were “reprehensible,” she also took into account a string of mitigating factors. Chief among them was Roske’s “spontaneous confession to and cooperation with police” following the arrest. This, Boardman suggested, distinguished the case from others where defendants had not shown similar contrition or willingness to assist law enforcement.
The details of the attempted assassination are chilling. In June 2022, as the nation braced for the Supreme Court’s decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Roske traveled to Kavanaugh’s Maryland residence, armed and, by all accounts, intent on carrying out a deadly attack. The timing of the incident, coming just before the release of a decision that would reshape abortion rights across America, only heightened the tension and public scrutiny surrounding the case.
Despite the gravity of the crime, Judge Boardman’s sentence fell far short of what federal prosecutors had sought. The DOJ’s argument was clear: an attempt on the life of a sitting Supreme Court justice, especially one motivated by the potential for a consequential court decision, warranted a severe penalty. They pressed for a minimum of 30 years, underscoring the seriousness of the threat not just to Kavanaugh personally, but to the integrity and safety of the entire judicial system.
The backlash from conservative commentators was swift and unrelenting. Mike Davis, a conservative lawyer and strategist who previously served as chief counsel for nominations to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice his outrage. “Maryland U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman—a Biden appointee—is a national disgrace,” Davis wrote. “She only sentenced to 8 years, instead of 30, someone who attempted to murder Justice Kavanaugh and his family in their home. Make no mistake: Today’s Democrats want conservatives killed.”
Other critics zeroed in on the role Roske’s transgender identity may have played in the sentencing. One user on X accused Boardman of factoring in “the fact that he now identifies as a woman into giving him a lower sentence.” Another post circulated a screenshot suggesting Boardman had inquired whether Roske would be sent to a women’s prison, further fueling speculation and anger among those who felt the judge’s decision was influenced by considerations unrelated to the crime itself.
Author M.A. Rothman didn’t mince words, calling the sentence “pathetic.” He argued, “A guy who showed up at a Supreme Court Justice’s house armed and ready to kill him just got a lighter sentence than some people get for tax crimes—and the judge turned it into a trans acceptance story. This is beyond parody. The DOJ wanted 30 years. He got 8. And the media barely blinked.”
The DOJ’s response was equally pointed. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on Friday that the department would appeal the sentence, describing it as “woefully insufficient.” In a post on X, Bondi wrote, “The attempted assassination of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was a disgusting attack against our entire judicial system by a profoundly disturbed individual. @TheJusticeDept will be appealing the woefully insufficient sentence imposed by the district court, which does not reflect the horrific facts of this case.”
Judge Boardman’s background has also come under the microscope. She began her federal judicial career as a U.S. magistrate judge for the District of Maryland in 2019 before being nominated by President Joe Biden to the U.S. district court. Confirmed by the Senate in 2021, Boardman previously worked as a public defender, a role that some critics have pointed to as evidence of a more lenient approach to sentencing. Supporters, however, argue that her experience brings a valuable perspective to the bench, particularly in cases involving complex mitigating factors.
The sentencing arrives at a time when the Supreme Court and its justices are under unprecedented scrutiny and, some argue, threat. The Dobbs decision itself sparked nationwide protests, with both pro-life and pro-choice demonstrators converging on the Supreme Court steps in Washington, D.C., in June 2022. According to The Washington Post, the atmosphere outside the court was tense and, at times, volatile—reflecting the deep divisions in American society over abortion rights and the role of the judiciary.
The debate over Roske’s sentence taps into larger questions about the politicization of the courts, the influence of personal identity in the justice system, and the appropriate penalties for threats against public officials. Some legal analysts have warned that lenient sentences in such high-profile cases could embolden others to target judges or other government figures, while others insist that each case must be weighed on its individual merits, taking into account both the severity of the crime and the circumstances surrounding it.
For now, the case is far from over. With the DOJ’s appeal pending, the ultimate resolution of Roske’s fate—and, by extension, the broader debate over judicial safety and sentencing standards—remains uncertain. What is clear is that Judge Boardman’s decision has struck a nerve, laying bare the deep fissures in American politics and society over issues of justice, identity, and the rule of law.
As the legal process continues, eyes across the nation will remain fixed on the outcome, mindful that the stakes extend far beyond the fate of one would-be assassin. The safety of public officials, the independence of the judiciary, and the credibility of the justice system itself all hang in the balance.
