Judge Under Fire After Lenient Sentence in Kavanaugh Attack Case

A federal judge is drawing sharp criticism after handing down what many see as a notably light sentence in a high-profile attempted assassination case. U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman, appointed under President Biden, sentenced Nicholas Roske — who now identifies as transgender and goes by Sophie — to eight years in prison for the 2022 attempt to target Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

---

The Attack and the Sentence

In 2022, Roske showed up at the home of Justice Kavanaugh, armed and intending violence. The threat came just weeks before the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, making the case deeply symbolic. The Department of Justice had pushed for a 30-year term, arguing the severity of the act demanded it.

However, during the sentencing hearing, Judge Boardman cited mitigating factors, including Roske’s spontaneous confession and cooperation with law enforcement, as justification for a lighter penalty. “Her actions were reprehensible,” the judge said, but she also emphasized that Roske’s decision to surrender and assist authorities warranted consideration. The defense had argued remorse and a desire to stop the plot before it fully unfolded.

---

Backlash and Criticism

Conservative voices took aim swiftly. Mike Davis, a strategist and former Senate nomination counsel, called Boardman a “national disgrace” on social media for deviating from the DOJ’s recommended sentence. Others accused her of favoring political correctness or identity politics — particularly by mentioning Roske’s gender identity during her ruling.

At least one commenter claimed the judge was “turning it into a trans acceptance story,” referencing public debates over when and how courts consider defendants’ identities. Complaints also focused on reports that Judge Boardman asked whether Roske should be incarcerated in a women’s facility despite biological sex, which many saw as an indulgence inconsistent with other prosecutorial norms.

The public and legal community took notice, and the DOJ wasted no time in appealing. Attorney General Pam Bondi described the attack on Kavanaugh as not just an assault on one person, but on the entire judicial system. She called the eight-year sentence “woefully insufficient,” indicating higher courts would revisit the decision.

---

Boardman’s Background & Judicial Role

Judge Boardman joined the federal bench after a progression from magistrate judge to district judge. Before that, she served as a federal public defender, representing defendants in criminal cases. Her background often draws defenders who say she brings a balanced and empathetic view to sentencing, especially in cases involving mental health or complex personal histories.

Yet critics argue those qualities should not overshadow accountability in a case that involved a direct attempt on a justice’s life.

---

The Defendant’s Story

In materials submitted to the court before sentencing, Roske painted a picture of internal struggle. He claimed the assassination plan was not representative of who he truly was. When faced with the reality of what lay outside Kavanaugh’s home, he asserted, he backed away.

Roske detailed a history of mental health challenges, conflict with gender identity, and alienation from a conservative religious upbringing. Therapy had once provided structure, but participation dwindled during the pandemic, he said, and he struggled in its absence.

He asked the court for a chance at redemption and to be judged not just by his worst moment, but by what he could become after that.

---

Why the Case Mattered—and Why the Sentence Shocked

The audacity of an attack on a Supreme Court justice is rare. Cases like this are often viewed as symbolic to political extremes. The public expects stern punishment in such high-risk instances. Many felt Judge Boardman’s decision broke from that expectation by prioritizing mitigating factors over deterrence.

For progressives and defenders of reform, one sees the decision as evidence that the justice system should have room for humanity, even in dire cases. For critics, it’s a sign of judicial softness in politically charged cases.

This clash over sentencing reveals fractures in how courts balance punishment against compassion, stability against rehabilitation, and the desire for strong deterrence against the need to account for individual complexity.

---

What’s Ahead

The DOJ appeal will be closely watched. If higher courts find Judge Boardman’s decision too lenient, the sentence could be elevated or remanded for reconsideration. Legal observers will also monitor whether this ruling sets any precedent for how identity or mental health are weighed in violent political cases.

For the public, the case raises tough questions: Should identity or personal struggle ever reduce punishment in attempted assassination cases? How much weight should remorse or cooperation carry when lives were endangered? And, above all, how do courts protect both justice and fairness when the stakes are national?

As the appeal moves forward, all eyes will be on whether this case remains a flashpoint or becomes a turning point for judicial sentencing norms in politically explosive crimes.