Supreme Court Assassin Gets Less Than 9 Years as DOJ Appeals

Interior of a historic courtroom with wooden furniture and an American flag

A federal judge gave a would-be Supreme Court assassin less than nine years, and now the Trump Justice Department is fighting to keep her locked up for decades.

Story Snapshot

A California woman plotted to murder Justice Brett Kavanaugh at his home, then got just 97 months in prison.^[3]
Federal sentencing guidelines called for **30 years to life**, but the judge sided with defense lawyers instead.^[10]
Attorney General Pam Bondi blasted the punishment as “woefully insufficient” and ordered a Justice Department appeal.^[1]
The case now tests how seriously our courts treat violent attacks on conservative Supreme Court justices.^[6]

Would-Be Assassin, Light Sentence, and a High-Stakes Appeal

Federal prosecutors say Sophie Roske traveled from California to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Maryland home in 2022 armed with a handgun, ammunition, and tools to break in, restrain, and kill the justice.^[3] She pleaded guilty in 2025 to attempting to murder a Supreme Court justice, admitting she came to change the Court’s direction by targeting conservative members.^[3] Despite that plan, United States District Judge Deborah Boardman sentenced her to just 97 months in prison and a lifetime of supervised release, far below what prosecutors sought.^[5]

The Trump administration’s Department of Justice asked the court for a sentence of at least 30 years to life in prison.^[6] In a detailed filing, prosecutors said the federal sentencing guidelines range for Roske’s crimes was between 30 and more than 33 years, matching the severity of plotting to kill multiple justices.^[10] The Justice Department press release stressed that this was an attempted assassination of a Supreme Court justice, not a minor offense, and argued that anything close to eight years fails to protect the Court or deter future attacks.^[6]

Judge Boardman’s Leniency and the “Surrender” Argument

Judge Boardman explained in court that she gave a lighter sentence because Roske aborted the attack and called authorities before entering Kavanaugh’s home or firing her weapon.^[3] Reports show she phoned 911 from near the justice’s house and surrendered to responding officers, which the judge treated as an important mitigating factor.^[3] Defense lawyers pushed hard on Roske’s troubled background and mental health, and Boardman ultimately gave a sentence only one month higher than the defense requested, accepting their view that her surrender showed changed intent.^[13]

Conservative lawmakers and commentators quickly questioned this reasoning.^[11] They argue that someone who brings a gun and kidnapping tools to a Supreme Court justice’s door has already crossed a red line, even if they later lose their nerve.^[9] Senator Mike Lee pointed out that Roske did not abandon the plan at home in California; she crossed the country with weapons in hand and only called police once she was outside the justice’s house, under intense stress and fear.^[11] For many conservatives, that is far too thin a basis for wiping out more than two decades of recommended prison time.^[10]

Pam Bondi, Sentencing Guidelines, and Equal Justice

Attorney General Pam Bondi has been direct and sharp about the sentence. In public statements and on social media, she called the 97‑month term “woefully insufficient” and “grossly inadequate” for an attempted assassination of a Supreme Court justice.^[1] Bondi announced that the Justice Department will appeal the sentence to the federal appeals court, arguing Judge Boardman failed to follow the guidelines range that experts calculated for this case.^[6] Her stance sends a clear message that threats and plots against the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, deserve the toughest lawful penalty.

The guidelines matter because they are supposed to give consistent punishment across the country.^[10] In this case, the official calculation put Roske’s range at 30 years to life, reflecting factors like planning, travel, weapons, and an alleged intent to target multiple conservative justices.^[10] When judges sharply depart from those ranges, especially in high-profile political cases, it raises questions about whether personal views are creeping into sentencing.^[18] For readers who value limited but firm government, the Trump administration’s decision to appeal looks like an effort to restore equal justice, not to expand federal power.

Media Spin, Judicial Politics, and the Stakes for Conservatives

Mainstream outlets like The Washington Post, Bloomberg Law, and others have framed the appeal as aggressive and “unlikely to succeed,” stressing Roske’s “deeply troubled” status more than the threat to the Court.^[2] Legal commentators on the left often describe the Trump Justice Department as “weaponized” whenever it pushes hard sentences in cases tied to conservative figures.^[22] That narrative downplays the danger of a world where armed activists decide they can change Supreme Court rulings by stalking justices at home, a trend that alarms many families who simply want stable law and order.

WaPo: DOJ Will Appeal 'Her' Sentence to Keep Would-Be Assassin 'Sophie' Roske Behind Bars https://t.co/HLjkq95T5z

— Carol RN *Miss Rush & the Gipper* 👩‍⚕️🇺🇸 🇮🇱🦈 (@pasqueflower19) June 23, 2026

This fight is bigger than one defendant. If trying to assassinate a Supreme Court justice brings less than nine years in prison, some fear it invites more radical attacks on judges who defend the Constitution, gun rights, and traditional values.^[6] The appeal will also be a test of how much discretion federal judges have to discount guidelines in politically charged cases. For Trump-supporting conservatives, the case is a reminder that defending the rule of law means backing strong, consistent sentences when our institutions—and the people who serve in them—are directly under threat.^[17]