A federal judge is facing widespread criticism from conservative voices on social media following the sentencing of the individual convicted of attempting to assassinate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The case has drawn attention not only for the severity of the attack but also due to the defendant’s gender identity.

U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman, appointed by President Biden, sentenced Nicholas Roske—who now identifies as a transgender woman named Sophie—to eight years in prison for the 2022 assassination attempt. The attack occurred just weeks before the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade.

The eight-year sentence is far below the 30 years sought by the Department of Justice. Roske’s defense had requested an eight-year term, citing remorse and voluntary cooperation with authorities prior to the attempted attack. During the sentencing hearing, Judge Boardman acknowledged that Roske’s actions were “reprehensible” but noted mitigating factors, including the defendant’s confession and cooperation with law enforcement.

The decision immediately drew criticism online. Conservative figures labeled the sentence “pathetic” and suggested political bias influenced the outcome. Some social media posts targeted Boardman personally, criticizing her for taking into account Roske’s transgender identity and for the comparatively light sentence.

Many commentators expressed disbelief that someone who showed up armed at a Supreme Court Justice’s home could receive a sentence reportedly lighter than penalties for certain financial crimes. Others focused on Boardman’s consideration of the defendant’s gender identity in deciding on the prison placement, questioning whether that influenced the sentencing decision.

The Justice Department announced it would appeal the sentence. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi described the attack as “a disgusting attack against our entire judicial system” and called the district court’s ruling “woefully insufficient,” signaling an upcoming legal battle over the sentence.

Amid the backlash, questions have been raised about the balance between acknowledging mitigating circumstances and ensuring accountability for high-profile acts of political violence. But the full context behind the sentencing sheds light on the complex factors considered by the court.