Attempted Justice Attack: Roske Pleads Guilty to Assassination Plot

Nicholas John Roske, a 29-year-old from Simi Valley, California, stood before a federal court on April 8, 2025, and admitted to a crime that sent ripples through the nation’s capital. He pleaded guilty to attempting to assassinate a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, a plot thwarted in the early hours of June 8, 2022. Law enforcement officials detailed how Roske traveled across the country, armed with a firearm, ammunition, and an array of tools, intent on targeting a Justice’s home in Montgomery County, Maryland. The admission closed a chapter on a case that had gripped public attention for nearly three years.

The incident unfolded against a backdrop of heightened national tension, with Roske citing frustration over a leaked Supreme Court draft decision on abortion and the Uvalde, Texas, school shooting as triggers for his actions. His guilty plea, announced by the Department of Justice, underscored a rare but alarming threat to the judiciary, raising questions about the intersection of personal grievances, political unrest, and access to weapons. As sentencing looms in October, the case offers a stark reminder of the stakes involved when violence encroaches on democratic institutions.

It was just after 1 a.m. when two Deputy U.S. Marshals spotted Roske stepping out of a taxi near the Justice’s residence. Dressed in black and carrying a backpack and suitcase, he appeared unassuming until he walked away from the scene, prompting the officers to take notice. Moments later, Roske called Montgomery County’s emergency line, confessing homicidal and suicidal thoughts and revealing his intent to kill. Police arrived swiftly, arresting him and uncovering a chilling arsenal, including a tactical knife, zip ties, and lock-pick tools, stashed in his bags.

The swift response from law enforcement, a collaboration between the FBI, U.S. Marshals Service, and local police, averted what officials called a premeditated attack. Roske’s own statements to authorities laid bare his motives, tying his actions to outrage over judicial decisions and recent tragedies. The incident exposed vulnerabilities in protecting public officials, even as it highlighted the effectiveness of interagency coordination in stopping threats before they escalate. For many, it was a wake-up call about the fragility of judicial safety in an era of rising hostility.

Roske’s case is not an isolated event. Over the past five years, the U.S. Marshals Service has investigated over 1,000 serious threats against federal judges, a sharp uptick fueled by political polarization and public discontent with court rulings. Researchers point to a growing acceptance of violence as a political tool, with studies showing that divisions over issues like abortion and gun rights often spill into real-world aggression. The January 6, 2021, Capitol attack remains a vivid example of how ideological fervor can turn deadly, and threats against justices have surged in its wake.

Experts argue that mental health also plays a complex role. While not all perpetrators of targeted violence have diagnosable conditions, many, like Roske, exhibit warning signs, such as isolation or fixation on grievances, that could signal trouble. Advocates for community-based intervention programs say addressing these signs early, through mental health support or threat assessment teams, could prevent escalation. Yet, funding for such initiatives remains inconsistent, leaving law enforcement to balance reactive policing with proactive prevention in an increasingly volatile landscape.

The attempted attack has reignited debates over gun access and judicial protection. Supporters of tighter firearm regulations highlight how Roske legally transported a gun across state lines, arguing that universal background checks or red flag laws might have flagged his intentions. On the other side, gun rights advocates contend that such measures infringe on individual freedoms and point to Roske’s mental state, not the weapon, as the root issue. Both perspectives agree on one thing: the ease of acquiring tools for violence remains a pressing concern.

Meanwhile, judicial security is under scrutiny. The American Bar Association has pushed for stronger safeguards, like shielding judges’ personal information, amid budget cuts to the U.S. Marshals Service. Lawmakers face pressure to act, but solutions are tangled in partisan gridlock. Some propose a specialized police force for Supreme Court justices, while others call for broader efforts to curb inflammatory rhetoric from public figures, which studies link to spikes in threats. Finding common ground, however, remains elusive as the nation grapples with its divisions.

Roske faces up to life in prison when sentenced on October 3, a decision that will rest with U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman after weighing legal guidelines and the case’s gravity. For now, his guilty plea marks a step toward accountability, as Attorney General Pamela Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel emphasized in their statements. The Justice Department’s resolve to pursue such cases signals a firm stance against violence targeting public officials, though it does little to ease the underlying tensions that birthed the plot.

As the nation watches, Roske’s actions leave a lingering question: how to protect a democracy when its guardians become targets? The answer may lie in bridging the gaps, between law enforcement and communities, between mental health resources and those in need, between a polarized public and the institutions it relies on. For now, the incident stands as a sobering lesson in vigilance, a call to confront the forces driving such acts before they strike again.