California man charged in Justice Kavanaugh assassination attempt pleads guilty
California man charged in Justice Kavanaugh assassination attempt pleads guilty
Show Caption
Hide Caption
SCOTUS considers Planned Parenthood defunding case amid protests
Pro and anti-abortion protesters lined up outside the Supreme Court in Washington D.C., as the justices heard a Planned Parenthood defunding case.
A California man pleaded guilty on Tuesday to attempting to kill Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh at his Maryland home in 2022, the Justice Department announced.
As part of the guilty plea, Nicholas John Roske, 29, of Simi Valley, California, admitted that he flew from Los Angeles to Dulles International Airport on June 7, 2022, with a firearm and ammunition in his checked baggage, according to the Justice Department news release. Roske, the release added, then took a taxi from the airport to Montgomery County, Maryland, with the intent to kill Kavanaugh, a member of the court's conservative majority.
According to a criminal complaint, two Deputy U.S. Marshals who protected Kavanaugh's Maryland home observed Roske arriving at the front of the residence on June 8, 2022, at about 1:05 a.m. Once they observed Roske, the Marshals exited their vehicles as Roske walked down the street.
Shortly after, the complain adds, Roske told a Montgomery County Emergency Communications Center call taker that "he was having homicidal and suicidal thoughts, had a gun in his suitcase, and flew from California to kill a specific Supreme Court Justice." Officers with the Montgomery County Police Department later responded to the location and arrested Roske.
Roske faces a maximum sentence of life in prison. U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman scheduled sentencing for Oct. 3.
Authorities said at the time that Roske was dismayed at expected Supreme Court opinions ending the national right to abortion and rolling back gun regulations. Authorities later recovered a Glock pistol, a tactical knife, pepper spray, zip ties, a hammer, and a crow bar from a pack he was carrying.
"This calculated attempt on the life of a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice was a heinous attack on the Court itself," said Attorney General Pamela Bondi in a statement. "Anyone who thinks they can use violence or intimidation to influence our courts will be met with the full force of the law and face up to life in prison."
FBI Director Kash Patel echoed Bondi's sentiments in the Tuesday statement, saying Roske's plans were "despicable."
"No violent attacks can be tolerated, whether those targeted are public officials or private citizens - and the FBI and our partners will aggressively investigate and bring to justice all those who engage in such plots," Patel said.
The incident happened about a month after a leaked draft opinion indicated the court was poised to overturn its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide. The court issued its final ruling weeks after Roske's arrest.
Kavanaugh, a conservative jurist appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term, has served on the court since 2018.
Contributing: Kevin Johnson, Josh Meyer, and John Fritze, USA TODAY; Reuters
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Brazil court majority favors tougher social media rules
Brazil's Supreme Court reached a majority Wednesday in favor of toughening social media regulation, in a groundbreaking case for Latin America on the spread of fake news and hate speech. The South American country's highest court is seeking to determine to what extent companies like X, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook are responsible for removing illegal content, and how they can be sanctioned if they do not. The judges' final ruling will create a precedent that will affect tens of millions of social media users in Brazil. At issue is a clause in the country's so-called Civil Framework for the Internet -- a law in effect since 2014 that says platforms are only responsible for harm caused by a post if they ignore a judge's order to remove it. By Wednesday, six of the court's 11 judges had ruled in favor of higher accountability, meaning sites should monitor content and remove problematic posts on their own initiative, without judicial intervention. One judge has voted against tougher regulation, and four have yet to express an opinion. "We must, as a court, move in the direction of freedom with responsibility and regulated freedom, which is the only true freedom," Judge Flavio Dino said during Wednesday's session, broadcast online. Not doing so would be like "trying to open an airline without regulation in the name of the right of free movement," he added. Google, for its part, said in a statement that changing the rules "will not contribute to ending the circulation of unwanted content on the internet." - Coup plot - Alexandre de Moraes, one of the court's judges, has repeatedly clashed with X owner Elon Musk and various right-wing personalities over social media posts. The review is taking place in parallel with the Supreme Court trial of far-right former president Jair Bolsonaro, who is alleged to have collaborated on a coup plot to remain in power after his 2022 election defeat. Prosecutors say Bolsonaro's followers used social media to lie about the reliability of the electoral system and plot the downfall of successor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Last year, Moraes blocked X for 40 days for failing to comply with a series of court orders against online disinformation. He had previously ordered X to suspend the accounts of several Bolsonaro supporters. Musk and other critics say Moraes is stifling free speech, and US President Donald Trump's administration is weighing sanctions against the judge, whom Bolsonaro accuses of judicial "persecution." Lula, who emerged the victor in the tightly-fought 2022 election against Bolsonaro, is advocating for "accelerating regulation" of online platforms. ffb/ll/dga/mlr/des/nl
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump tells judge he does not need Newsom's permission to crack down on rioters, deploy National Guard
The Justice Department on Wednesday doubled down on its assertion that President Donald Trump has the authority to call up U.S. National Guard troops in California, describing Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's emergency lawsuit to block his action as a "crass political stunt" that risks "endangering American lives." At issue in the case is whether Trump, as commander in chief, has the authority to federalize the National Guard against the express wishes or consent of a state governor. Both sides are slated to appear in court Friday while a judge weighs California's request for injunctive relief. In the new court filing, lawyers for the administration said Trump, as president, has "no obligation" to consult with, or even to notify, Newsom before federalizing the National Guard. 'State Of Rebellion': Expert Weighs In On Newsom Challenge To Trump Deploying National Guard "The extraordinary relief plaintiffs request would judicially countermand the Commander in Chief's military directives – and would do so in the posture of a temporary restraining order, no less," lawyers for the Trump administration said in the filing. "That would be unprecedented. It would be constitutionally anathema," they added. "And it would be dangerous." Read On The Fox News App That argument is unlikely to sit well with Newsom. And it comes one day after California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Tuesday sued the Trump administration over what the state described as the president's unlawful action in federalizing the National Guard, which they noted was carried out without Newsom's consent. Bonta argued in the lawsuit that Trump's actions were both inappropriate and illegal, since he did not first seek Newsom's permission to federalize the troops. National Guard units fall under the dual control of state and federal governments, and any action to mobilize the units typically goes through the respective state governor first. The judge overseeing the case declined the state's request for a temporary restraining order blocking Trump's actions but ordered both parties to court Friday to consider the request for broader injunctive relief. Republican Attorneys General Accuse California Of Excusing 'Lawlessness' At issue is 10 U.S.C. § 12406, or the law that Trump invoked in his memo late last week to call up the National Guard. The law allows presidents to deploy the National Guard and other troops at the federal level in the event of "rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the U.S. government. In that case, the law says the president "may call into federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws." But lawyers for Newsom told the court that Trump lacked the power to federalize the troops under Section 12406, since the immigration protests, in their view, did not amount to a rebellion. Trump Nominates Former Defense Attorney Emil Bove For Federal Appeals Court Vacancy "At no point in the past three days has there been a rebellion or an insurrection. Nor have these protests risen to the level of protests or riots that Los Angeles and other major cities have seen at points in the past, including in recent years," they told the court. A group of 26 Republican state attorneys general from filed an amicus brief siding with Trump one day earlier, arguing that his decision to federalize the National Guard to address ICE riots and protests that broke out in parts of the state was the "right response." "In California, we're seeing the results of leadership that excuses lawlessness and undermines law enforcement," the attorneys general wrote in the statement, first provided to Fox News Digital. "When local and state officials won't act, the federal government must." Fox News Digital's Ashley Oliver contributed to this article source: Trump tells judge he does not need Newsom's permission to crack down on rioters, deploy National Guard
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Brazil's top court votes to hold social media platforms accountable for user posts
By Ricardo Brito BRASILIA (Reuters) -Brazil's Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that social media companies must be held accountable for some types of content published by users on their platforms in the country, but details on the decision have yet to be resolved. Six of the 11 Supreme Court judges voted to hold platforms responsible for third-party content seen as illegal, in a decision that could result in fines against social media companies for not removing some users' posts in the country. The decision could impact the business of platforms including Meta's Facebook and Instagram, as well as TikTok, Elon Musk's X and other internet giants, such as Alphabet's Google, in a market of more than 200 million people. Only one justice so far voted to not change the current law on the matter, which says that the companies can only be found responsible for third-party content on their platforms if the firms do not comply with a legal decision ordering the content removal. Writing for the majority, Justice Gilmar Mendes said current Brazilian law represents "a veil of irresponsibility for digital platforms." "Even if they are informed of the occurrence of crimes on their platforms, they (currently) cannot be held responsible for damages caused by keeping this content online, except in the case of a court order," he said. Asked to comment, Meta sent a 2024 statement where it had said that a decision holding platforms responsible could make them "liable for virtually all types of content even without having been notified." In a statement sent before the vote which gave the court a majority, Google said the current Brazilian law regarding social media can and should be improved, "as long as procedure guarantees and criteria are set to prevent legal uncertainty and the indiscriminate content removal." TikTok and a representative of X in Brazil did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The court did not agree on the scope of the decision, such as what types of content would be considered illegal. The court's head, Luis Roberto Barroso, said he will work with the court members to find a consensus. Four judges still need to vote in the trial, which has been rolling over for months. Votes previously cast can still be changed, although that is not common. The trial is set to resume on Thursday.
