The Justice Department has appealed the eight-year prison sentence handed down to Sophie Roske, who pleaded guilty to attempting to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. Roske, 26, was arrested near Kavanaugh’s suburban Maryland home after flying cross-country from California with a firearm and various tools intended to aid in the attack. The appeal challenges the leniency of the original sentence, which prosecutors described as "woefully insufficient," seeking a significantly longer term.

Roske’s plan, which unfolded over several weeks in 2022, involved purchasing a Glock 17 handgun, ammunition, tactical gloves, pepper spray, and lock-picking tools. She also researched potential escape routes, including searches for countries without extradition agreements with the U.S. After arriving late at night near Kavanaugh’s residence, she ultimately abandoned the attempt without attempting forced entry or violence. The Justice Department maintains that her decision to desist was prompted only by the unexpected presence of deputy U.S. marshals outside the home, arguing that, absent law enforcement, “we’d be talking about an assassinated Supreme Court justice.”

Roske’s defense and the sentencing judge, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman, disputed this characterization. Roske contended she reconsidered during the taxi ride and lost resolve upon seeing the justice in his neighborhood, which shifted her perspective away from carrying out the attack. Judge Boardman found that while law enforcement presence may have influenced Roske’s decision, it was not the sole factor and there was insufficient evidence to conclude otherwise. The judge highlighted that Roske did not flee quietly after aborting the plan but instead called police to confess, which underscored her abandonment of the attack.

In sentencing Roske, Judge Boardman did not apply a “terrorism enhancement” to the case, which would have substantially increased the recommended punishment, potentially up to 30 years or more. The judge reasoned that Roske acted alone, was not affiliated with any terrorist group, lacked a manifesto, and ultimately chose not to commit violence. The decision emphasized Roske’s lack of prior criminal history and her ongoing mental health challenges, including depression related to gender dysphoria. Boardman also acknowledged potential hardships Roske could face as a transgender individual in federal custody, though legal experts suggested these factors had only limited influence on the sentence.

Prosecutors have urged the appellate court to reconsider the sentence, arguing the gravity of plotting an assassination of a Supreme Court justice warrants a much harsher penalty. They assert that Roske’s level of premeditation and preparation demands a strong deterrent message to others considering similar acts. Legal analysts note that while appellate judges give considerable discretion to trial courts on sentencing matters, the thoroughness of Boardman’s analysis—from Roske’s personal background to the details of her plot and mental health—provides multiple points for appellate review.

Roske’s attorneys are expected to submit their reply brief by mid-July, with oral arguments unlikely until next year. The appeal will test how courts balance the seriousness of political violence with individual circumstances such as mental health and abandonment of a planned attack.