Judge Deborah Boardman Should Be Impeached

Judge Deborah Boardman’s lenient sentencing of Nicholas Roske—the man who plotted to kill Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh—represents not merely poor judgment but a fundamental breach of judicial responsibility. She should be impeached.

I don’t say this lightly—and I’ve never before called for the impeachment of a federal judge. This constitutional mechanism exists to preserve the rule of law from genuine abuses of power, not to punish decisions we disagree with. But when a judge’s conduct reveals a disregard for her constitutional duty—and actively endangers the federal judiciary individually and collectively—we must consider the remedy the Framers provided.

Roske wasn’t a confused protester or an online provocateur. He traveled cross-country with a gun and burglary tools, arriving at Justice Kavanaugh’s home in the middle of the night on June 8, 2022, prepared to kill him. He confessed that he acted out of anger over the Court’s likely reversal of Roe v. Wade. Were it not for his last-minute hesitation, the United States would have faced its first targeted killing of a Supreme Court justice.

Yet Judge Boardman imposed an eight-year sentence, far below federal guidelines and lenient even by the standards of some nonviolent offenses. Such a response to a premeditated assassination attempt on a sitting justice cannot be squared with the seriousness of the crime or the need to deter political violence.

The record also suggests that Judge Boardman’s leniency was influenced, at least in part, by ideological sympathy. In her sentencing remarks, she cited Roske’s mental-health struggles and his alleged transgender status as mitigating factors, noting that one of President Trump’s executive orders would affect Roske’s ability to receive gender-transition medical care. However sincere her concern, the courtroom is not the place for identity-based indulgence. A judge’s duty is to apply the law evenhandedly, not to validate the defendant’s self-expression.

This case reinforces the growing perception that America has a two-tiered justice system. Conservatives are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for political trespasses—some January 6 defendants were sentenced to more than 20 years—while left-wing violence is rationalized or excused. Had a Trump supporter armed himself to kill Justice Sonia Sotomayor, does anyone think the sentence would have been as light?

Judicial legitimacy depends on the assurance that the law applies equally, regardless of a perpetrator’s ideology. If a conservative justice’s would-be assassin is treated as a victim rather than a criminal because his politics or gender identity align with progressive narratives, then equal protection of the law is a hollow promise. To call for impeachment here is to reaffirm that justice must be blind.

To be sure, judicial error, even grave error, should not be a cause for impeachment. Article III of the Constitution provides that judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” That doesn’t include alleged misinterpretations of the Commerce Clause or Second Amendment. But impeachment has been used as a safeguard against judges who subvert their oaths, thereby bringing the courts into disrepute.

Historically, the 15 federal judges who have been impeached—with eight removed—have committed various offenses: corruption, favoritism, perjury, and abuse of authority. The first was Judge John Pickering, removed in 1804 for erratic behavior and unlawful rulings. Most recently, Judge Thomas Porteous was impeached in 2010 for soliciting gifts from lawyers who appeared before him, filing false disclosures in his own bankruptcy case, and engaging in other deceptive conduct regarding his gambling debt. Congress considered this behavior “inconsistent with the trust and confidence placed in a federal judge.”

These precedents demonstrate that impeachment is not limited to criminal acts but is a constitutional check to preserve the judiciary’s credibility. When a judge’s actions erode that credibility, Congress has both the authority and the obligation to respond.

Judge Boardman’s conduct is doubly alarming against a backdrop of escalating political violence. The assassination of Charlie Kirk; the texted desire for the death of a political rival by Jay Jones (the Democratic nominee for Virginia attorney general); and the rise in ideologically motivated intimidation on and off campus reveal the thinning line between rhetoric and violence.

Judges should serve as bulwarks against that trend, not its enablers. If the law means anything, it must mean that political violence—against anyone, for any cause—is met not with sympathy, but with justice.

I’ve defended judicial independence my entire career. But independence is not impunity. When empathy eclipses duty and identity politics intrudes into the courtroom, judicial independence is corrupted.

Judge Deborah Boardman’s sentencing of Nicholas Roske has shaken public confidence in the federal judiciary. For the safety and integrity of our institutions and the preservation of the rule of law, Congress should begin impeachment proceedings.

Photo by MEHMET ESER/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images