admin
The Justice Department just asked an appellate court to fix what it calls a too‑light sentence for Sophie Roske, the California man who pleaded guilty to attempting to kill Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. Prosecutors filed an opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in mid‑June asking the court to reverse parts of U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman’s decision and to apply a harsher sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines.
What the government argues — and why it matters
The DOJ tells the Fourth Circuit that the district court was wrong to reject a terrorism enhancement and to accept the judge’s finding that Roske “abandoned” the plot for reasons other than seeing deputy U.S. Marshals outside the justice’s home. If that finding falls, the sentencing range jumps dramatically. Prosecutors had calculated a guidelines term at roughly the 30‑year mark when the terrorism enhancement is applied; Judge Boardman gave Roske 97 months instead. The appeal forces the question: do you get credit for walking away only because you were spotted, or do you get the full weight of the law for plotting a political assassination?
Don’t let the pronouns distract from the crime
Reporters noted the judge mentioned Roske’s gender identity and potential hardships in custody among other factors. Legal analysts say that consideration looks secondary to her core factual findings about abandonment, mental health and lack of prior crimes. Fine — but let’s be honest: when a judge publicly factors identity into a sentence for trying to murder a justice, many Americans will see politics and public sympathy seeping into punishment. That perception matters. Sentences are supposed to punish and deter political violence, not create optics that some attackers get lighter treatment because the narrative fits a preferred social cause.
What comes next in the Fourth Circuit
The appeal puts the case into the appellate pipeline: the government’s opening brief is on file, the defense will reply, and oral argument could follow. Appellate courts usually give district judges wide latitude, so the government faces an uphill climb proving abuse of discretion. Still, the key factual dispute — why Roske left the scene — is squarely before the court. A win for prosecutors would signal that plotting to kill a justice to change court decisions is the kind of political violence that merits the terrorism enhancement and stiff penalties.
Bottom line: law, deterrence, and public confidence
This isn’t about fashioning outrage or scoring points over pronouns. It’s about whether the justice system treats attempted political assassination as the grave threat it is. The DOJ’s appeal is a reasonable step to press that point and to seek a sentence that matches the crime and the risk. Conservatives should watch the Fourth Circuit closely — not just for one man’s punishment, but for whether courts will send a clear message that political violence will face the full force of federal law.
