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
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Washington's Supreme Court slashes public defender caseload limits
(Photo by) The state Supreme Court on Monday responded to a 'crisis' in Washington's public defense system by slashing caseloads for those providing counsel to poor defendants facing criminal prosecutions. Justices unanimously agreed to set the new statewide standards, which call for public defenders to handle a maximum of 47 felony cases or 120 misdemeanor cases in a year, depending on one's primary area of practice. The current thresholds are 150 felonies and 400 misdemeanors. The group that represents Washington counties says the new standards are unattainable with the level of funding now available and due to a shortage of lawyers. Under the court's interim order, the new caseload limits take effect Jan. 1, 2026 and should be achieved 'as soon as reasonably possible' and no later than 10 years, Chief Justice Debra Stephens wrote in the four-page order. 'The crisis in the provision of indigent criminal defense services throughout our state requires action now,' Stephens wrote for the majority. Monday's decision is a potential game-changer in the state's effort to shore up a beleaguered public defense system that struggles to provide timely, equitable and effective counsel. 'It's a bold move. I didn't expect justices to go this far,' said Larry Jefferson, director of the state's Office of Public Defense. Jefferson warned justices 18 months ago the system was on the 'verge of collapse' as cases piled up, trials backed up and over-stressed attorneys retired or resigned to work in higher-paying, less stressful jobs. He appealed to the justices for help. 'This is one of the first times that public defenders have been listened to,' Jefferson said. Some counties have had to release those accused of crimes due to the lack of available defense counsel. The ACLU of Washington sued Yakima County last year for failing to appoint attorneys for indigent people charged with crimes. Hiring more public defenders costs money. Cities and counties worry they also will need to amp up hiring of court staff and prosecutors to keep pace and that will be expensive. 'What they are describing here is impossible with our current budget constraints,' said Derek Young, executive director of the Washington State Association of Counties. 'There's not nearly enough workforce now. If we triple the demand for services, where will all these lawyers come from?' 'There is no timeline we can accommodate this absent the Legislature waking up' and providing greater financial support, he said. The new state budget provides $20 million for counties, he said, which is about 6% of their total public defense costs. Standards the state Supreme Court adopted in 2012 said a full-time public defense attorney or assigned counsel should have no more than 150 felony cases a year. In 2023, the American Bar Association, the National Center for State Courts and the RAND Justice Policy Program released the National Public Defense Workload Study. It concluded public defenders should handle far fewer cases. That year, Washington's high court asked the Washington State Bar Association to weigh in on whether the cap needed adjusting in light of the findings. The association responded in March 2024, recommending new maximums of 47 felony credits or 120 misdemeanor credits in a year, depending on the severity of the charges. The reduction would be phased in over three years. Under that approach, the cap for felony cases would be 120 in the first year, 90 in the second and 47 in the third. For misdemeanors, the limit would be 280 cases in the first year, dropping to 225 and then 120. As part of its proposal, the association assigned crimes credits based on seriousness and complexity of providing a legal defense. A motor vehicle theft was assigned one credit and a murder seven, for example. That means a lawyer could theoretically be assigned 47 vehicle theft or seven homicide cases in a year before hitting their limit. Such case weighting is 'permissible and encouraged' but not required, Stephens wrote for the court. If done, a local government should adopt and publish any policies and procedures underlying the use of such weighting, Stephens wrote. The Supreme Court started accepting public comment on the bar association's request to trim caseloads a year ago, while also holding public hearings and internal work sessions. In each hearing, prosecutors argued reducing caseloads would lead to filing of fewer cases to ensure no one's rights to counsel are violated. 'Without sufficient attorneys or without sufficient resources, it would lead to a de facto decriminalization and an increase in vigilantism,' Russell Brown, executive director of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, said in September. He added that 'way too many' people have had their cases dismissed or not filed because of a lack of public defenders. Supporters of reducing caseloads said in the hearings that the change is needed to stabilize the system. They contend that large caseloads and low pay are driving people out of public defense and deterring new lawyers from entering this line of legal work. And they, too, pointed to the problem in some counties where those accused of crimes, but unable to afford a lawyer, can wait long periods of time before they receive counsel. 'Public defense is in a downward spiral. We can fix this,' said Jason Schwarz, director of the Snohomish County Office of Public Defense and chair of the Washington State Bar Association's Council on Public Defense in September. 'This will be expensive. Justice is not cheap.' The order issued Monday isn't the final word. New rules are needed to put the caseload figures in place. And the bar association made other recommendations on subjects like staffing and training that justices are still considering. But the justices wanted to put out caseload information because they knew local governments are putting together their budgets for next year, Stephens wrote in the order.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
California files lawsuit against DOJ over transgender athlete demand
California filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department on Monday after officials demanded that the state's public high schools confirm they will bar transgender athletes from competing in girls' sports. The state said in its lawsuit that the Justice Department had "no right to make such a demand" and cited "no authority which would allow them to issue or enforce the Certification Demand Letter" to each local education agency. California defended the laws that have come into question, which allow athletes to participate in sports "consistent with" their gender identity and doesn't violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The lawsuit said the state's bylaws "do not classify or discriminate based on 'biological sex,' do not require schools to 'depriv[e] [cisgender] female students of athletic opportunities and benefits on the basis of their sex,' and do not effectuate any differential treatment on the basis of sex. "Instead, allowing athletic participation consistent with students' gender identity is substantially related to the important government interests of affording all students the benefits of an inclusive school environment, including participation in school sports, and preventing the serious harms that transgender students would suffer from a discriminatory, exclusionary policy," the lawsuit added. The state requested an injunction from the demand letter. Last week, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said in a letter obtained by Fox News Digital that public school districts must "certify in writing" by June 9 that they will not abide by the California Interscholastic Federation's gender identity rules. "Knowingly depriving female students of athletic opportunities and benefits on the basis of their sex would constitute unconstitutional sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause," Dhillon wrote in the letter. The California Interscholastic Federation governs public and private high school sports in the state and has a bylaw that requires its members to recognize gender identity in sports. All students should be able to participate in school sports "in a manner that is consistent with their gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on a student's records," the bylaw states. Dhillon, a former California-based conservative attorney, said the certifications she is seeking from the public school districts will "ensure compliance" with Title IX and help them to "avoid legal liability." California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement the lawsuit was filed "in anticipation of imminent legal retaliation against California's school systems" failing to adhere to Dhillon's demand, according to the Los Angeles Times. "The President and his Administration are demanding that California school districts break the law and violate the Constitution — or face legal retaliation. They're demanding that our schools discriminate against the students in their care and deny their constitutionally protected rights," Bonta wrote. "As we've proven time and again in court, just because the President disagrees with a law, that doesn't make it any less of one." The Justice Department had no immediate comment on the lawsuit. The DOJ previously filed a lawsuit against Maine after the state repeatedly thumbed its nose at President Donald Trump's executive order to keep males out of girls' and women's sports. The Justice Department accused Maine of "openly and defiantly flouting federal anti-discrimination law by enforcing policies that require girls to compete against boys in athletic competitions designated exclusively for girls." The latest chapter in California between the state and the Trump administration came days after transgender athlete AB Hernandez won state championships in the girls' division. Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Tesla Is Launching Robotaxis in Austin. Safety Advocates Are Concerned
Elon Musk's ugly public spat with former bestie Donald Trump is sure to cause more headaches for the Silicon Valley mogul down the line. Not only has he sacrificed any influence he might have with the White House by blasting the president for his association with the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, but some in the administration have floated the idea of reviving regulatory investigations into Musk's corporate empire. The timing of such a threat could hardly be worse. That's because Tesla, Musk's electric vehicle manufacturer, is about to face a make-or-break test of self-driving technology that the CEO believes is key to its future value — yet has been the subject of a years-long probe by the Justice Department into potential securities and wire fraud. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is meanwhile conducting multiple investigations into the possible risks posed by the same tech. More from Rolling Stone The Biggest Boondoggles in Trump's Big Beautiful Bill 'Dejected' Trump Says Relationship With Musk Is Over; Calls Him a 'Big-Time Drug Addict': Report Vance Says 'Trump Didn't Do Anything Wrong With Jeffrey Epstein' Last fall, at a carefully staged event on the Warner Bros. Discovery studio lot in Burbank, California, Musk unveiled what he called a 'Cybercab,' a sleek, two-seat vehicle with no steering wheel. This was the long-awaited prototype of Tesla's robotaxi, or a fully autonomous, driverless passenger vehicle. Back in 2019, Musk had predicted that existing Tesla models would become capable of driving themselves without human oversight once their 'Full Self-Driving' (FSD) driver-assistance software had been adequately updated. Now he was demoing a different, built-to-purpose model, seeming to signal that Teslas already on the road would not be upgraded to robotaxi capability. Then, in a January earnings call, Musk offered one of his typically optimistic predictions about a timetable for a paid robotaxi service, similar Amazon's Zoox, or Waymo, a subsidiary of Google parent company Alphabet. 'Teslas will be in the wild, with no one in them, in June, in Austin,' Musk said, referring to the Texas city that has been a base of operations for his businesses in recent years. Investors were skeptical. After all, Musk has a history of overpromising, and the Cybercab unveiled barely three months earlier was essentially a glorified movie prop. By late May, however, Musk was declaring significant progress on a robotaxi launch. 'For the past several days, Tesla has been testing self-driving Model Y cars (no one in driver's seat) on Austin public streets with no incidents,' he posted on X on May 28. 'A month ahead of schedule. Next month, first self-delivery from factory to customer.' It would appear, in this case, that Tesla had defaulted to the original idea of modifying its commercially available models to make them autonomous rather than holding off until it had a fleet of Cybercabs. Aside from stray comments like these, little is known about what Tesla's initial robotaxi program will look like. The company is reportedly targeting a launch date of June 12, with just 10-20 vehicles to start. A Morgan Stanley analyst — not Tesla itself — has claimed that rides will be available by invite only, not to the general public, and that the cars will be remotely supervised by operators prepared to take manual control if needed. That the automaker is keeping most details under wraps has left plenty of room for questions, doubts, and concerns — particularly as Waymo and other competitors tend to collect data and conduct local testing for far longer periods before welcoming passengers aboard. Dan O'Dowd, a software entrepreneur and founder of the tech safety group the Dawn Project, which has routinely showcased the shortcomings of Tesla's FSD tech, predicts that the robotaxi rollout will amount to lackluster stunt. 'Musk's upcoming robotaxi launch will still be nothing more than a bigger version of the 1950s Disneyland ride that Tesla demonstrated at [the Cybercab] event last year, if it even takes place at all,' he says. 'Despite Elon Musk claiming that Tesla was less than a year away from solving autonomy for nearly a decade and decrying the real robotaxi companies for geo-fencing and remote supervision, Tesla plans for its so-called robotaxis to only be able to drive around certain parts of Austin, avoiding intersections that are difficult,' while being remotely supervised,' O'Dowd notes. (Musk admitted in a recent interview that the robotaxis would be 'geo-fenced,' or restricted from certain parts of the city.) 'Tesla has also shown itself incapable of developing a working Cybercab, instead leaning on its Model Y in another backtrack on Elon's many false promises about solving autonomy,' O'Dowd adds. 'The golden Model 3 mules that Tesla is using to develop the Cybercab's software clearly demonstrate that Tesla has put the cart before the horse with the Cybercab.' On June 2, an X user posted a video of a Model 3 in a Tesla lot in San Diego that had seemingly been modified to resemble the Cybercab design, with its side mirrors removed and the rear windshield painted gold along with the body panels. The clip was taken by many Tesla observers as evidence that it was also using Model 3s to run autonomous driving experiments ahead of the robotaxi pilot program. Brett Schreiber, a partner at the San Diego law firm Singleton Schreiber who is currently pursuing multiple injury and wrongful death suits against Tesla over accidents involving its driver-assistance features, agrees that the company is backing down from the Cybercab concept Musk presented last year. 'It is a retreat on the idea that they are going to build out a new vehicle that is capable of autonomy,' he says, though 'a repeat of the continued lies and misrepresentations' from the CEO — namely, that existing Teslas can be turned into robotaxis. 'There is nothing about the vehicle today, whether you slap some lipstick on the pig of a Model Y, or any other vehicle in their production fleet, that [makes it] capable of level four or level five autonomy without driver intervention. They simply haven't gotten there, and just because they keep saying so doesn't make it true.' Levels four and five of driving automation refer to systems in which 'a human driver is not needed,' per NHTSA guidelines. Tesla's FSD is currently classified as level two, meaning that a human driver 'is fully responsible' for operating the vehicle even while assistance features are engaged. Schreiber believes that Tesla brought the robotaxi project to Texas for 'a more lax environment with respect to enforcement,' saying that 'in many states, California being one of them, they would not be allowed to do this in the way that they are doing it. They fled California for a lot of reasons, the least of which was the fact that they felt more constrained by their ability to roll out and continue to use the public roadways as their own personal test track, and use the members of the public as the guinea pigs in the grand experiment.' Indeed, the Texas Department of Transportation does not require any special permits for operating autonomous vehicles — only that these meet the same safety and insurance requirements as other vehicles. In California, by contrast, the Department of Motor Vehicles 'issues permits to manufacturers that test and deploy autonomous vehicles on California public roads.' Tesla, which does not have a press department, did not reply to a request for comment on details of the robotaxi launch or why Austin was chosen as the site. As for regulatory enforcement by NHTSA, it would largely come after the fact, since autonomous vehicle permitting is a state matter, not a federal one. 'Under U.S. law, NHTSA does not pre-approve new technologies or vehicle systems — rather, manufacturers certify that each vehicle meets NHTSA's rigorous safety standards, and the agency investigates incidents involving potential safety defects,' a sposkesperson for the agency tells Rolling Stone. 'Following an assessment of those reports and other relevant information, NHTSA will take any necessary actions to protect road safety.' NHTSA, as it happens, was one of a handful of regulators scrutinizing Musk's businesses to face cuts imposed by his so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), with at least four percent of staff dismissed. In Schreiber's estimation, the agency's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) 'has been completely gutted,' hampering its ability to go after Tesla. Even so, the ODI did send a letter to Tesla's director of field quality in May, requesting extensive information about the proposed automated driving system for its robotaxis in order 'to understand Tesla's technologies and operational use cases further, including to assess the ability of Tesla's system to react appropriately to reduced roadway visibility conditions.' NHTSA's probe into Tesla's FSD involves several accidents in which the system faced conditions such as fog or sun glare, including a 2023 collision in Arizona in which a Model Y struck and killed a pedestrian while driving into direct sunlight. That investigation 'remains open,' the agency spokesperson says. Meanwhile, if Tesla doesn't answer NHTSA's questions about how its robotaxis work and what steps it is taking to ensure their safe operation by a deadline of June 19, or secure a filing extension, it could be subject to civil penalties. By that time, of course, people may already be hailing driverless Teslas in Texas, with passengers, other motorists, and bystanders all at the mercy of a supposed breakthrough in vehicle autonomy. That's what has safety advocates like O'Dowd so alarmed. 'The people of Austin did not sign up to be crash-test dummies for Musk's reckless deployment of Tesla's defective and dangerous Full Self-Driving software,' he says. If the thought has ever bothered Musk, he hasn't said so. Upon stepping down from DOGE, he wrote on X that he would return to a '24/7' focus on his companies, Tesla in particular, as 'we have critical technologies rolling out.' Best of Rolling Stone Every Super Bowl Halftime Show, Ranked From Worst to Best The United States of Weed Gaming Levels Up
