Billionaire Elon Musk and GOP lawmakers have ramped up attacks in recent days on judges issuing unfavorable rulings against the White House, claiming they’re “corrupt” and should be removed from office, but federal rules and Republicans’ narrow majority in Congress mean any impeachment efforts are likely to fail.

The process for removing federal judges from office is similar to impeaching a president or other top official. The House would first have to vote to impeach the judge, with only a simple majority needed, but the judge can only be removed from office with a two-thirds majority of the Senate. That’s unlikely to happen given Republicans’ narrow majority in the Senate, as Democrats are unlikely to go along with any efforts to oust judges over rulings that are unfavorable to Trump and Musk. The Constitution directs officials should only be impeached for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” also saying judges “shall hold their Offices during good behavior.” The impeachment power has historically not been used to punish judges for unfavorable rulings, with the Brennan Center for Justice noting that precedent was set early in the nation’s history, when the Senate declined to convict a Supreme Court justice, Samuel Chase, after he openly criticized then-President Thomas Jefferson to a grand jury.

Impeaching federal judges has historically been very rare, and it’s even more rare for them to be removed from office. Only 15 federal judges have been impeached in Congress’ history, eight of whom the Senate has found guilty and removed from office. All of them were removed from office for various acts of misconduct—ranging from tax fraud to soliciting bribes—and none were for offenses related to an unfavorable ruling. The most recent Senate conviction of a federal judge was in 2010, when G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. of Louisiana was removed from office. Porteous was removed after he refused to recuse himself from a case that was being argued by a law firm the judge had a “corrupt financial relationship” with, according to his articles of impeachment, in which he was paid approximately $20,000 by the firm. The judge then made “intentionally misleading statements” about his relationship with the firm during his recusal hearing, and, after hearing the case, accepted payments from the law firm when he was considering how to rule.

Judge Paul Engelmayer: The federal district judge in the southern district of New York, Engelmayer was nominated to the bench by former President Barack Obama. The judge issued a brief ruling Feb. 9 that temporarily blocked DOGE’s access to the Treasury data, before a different Judge, Jeanette Vargas, then issued a more lasting order against DOGE. In his four-page ruling, Engelmayer said the Democratic-led states challenging DOGE’s access to Treasury data presented a “particularly strong” case and showed they would be harmed because of the risk of “disclosure of sensitive and confidential information and the heightened risk that the systems in question will be more vulnerable than before to hacking.”

Judge John Bates: Bates is a federal district judge in Washington, D.C., who was nominated by former President George W. Bush. The judge ordered the Trump administration to restore health-related websites in a ruling on Feb. 11, ruling the doctors who brought the lawsuit and the public will be “irreparably harmed by the lack of access” to the public health information. But Bates has also come down in the government’s favor. The judge denied labor unions’ request for him to block DOGE’s access to Labor Department data, though he also said he “harbors concerns” about the Musk-led group’s conduct.

Judge John McConnell: Obama appointed McConnell to serve as a federal district judge in Rhode Island in 2011. The judge blocked a controversial memo issued by the Trump administration to immediately halt almost all federal assistance, after Democratic state attorneys general challenged the memo in court, with the judge writing that while some aspects of the funding pause “might be legal and appropriate constitutionally for the Executive to take,” he is “equally sure that there are many instances in the Executive Orders’ wide-ranging, all-encompassing, and ambiguous ‘pause’ of critical funding that are not.” McConnell then issued a further ruling Feb. 10 enforcing the order and emphasizing the Trump administration’s need to release all frozen federal funds, after the states alleged the government was not fully complying with the judge’s order and still withholding some funds.

Judge Ana Reyes: The Trump administration has also filed a complaint against Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden-appointed district judge in Washington, D.C., who’s overseeing a lawsuit challenging the administration’s ban on transgender Americans serving in the military. The Justice Department alleges Reyes committed misconduct by showing “apparent bias” and “treat[ing] counsel disrespectfully,” pointing to a rhetorical exercise Reyes proposed during a hearing in order to make a point about discrimination. Reyes asked how the Trump administration would respond if her courtroom prohibited graduates of the University of Virginia’s law school—like the administration’s lawyer—from appearing in her courtroom because they were “liars and lack integrity,” the Associated Press reports, which the DOJ claims was an effort to “embarrass” the government’s attorney. The judge has not yet issued a ruling in the case.

The American College of Trial Lawyers issued a statement condemning Musk’s attacks on Engelmayer, which they argue are “baseless and intimidating” attacks that “are dangerous because they undermine the public’s trust in the rule of law and risk provoking violence against judges.” “For a public figure such as Mr. Musk to protest a decision by accusing the judge of ‘corruption’ and calling for his impeachment, without any basis, demeans our system of justice and puts the rule of law at risk,” ATCA said. “Such groundless and reckless accusations should be universally condemned.”

The attacks on judges come as Democratic-led states, labor unions, nonprofits and other plaintiffs have filed dozens of lawsuits challenging the Trump administration in the wake of Trump’s inauguration. Litigation has become a key strategy by the left in opposing Trump, given Republicans’ control of both the White House and Congress gives Democrats little power to force any change outside of court. The legal challenges have resulted in a slew of orders temporarily blocking Trump policies or DOGE access while the litigation plays out, though no lawsuits have yet resulted in any final, lasting rulings. In addition to the calls for judicial impeachments, Trump allies have also sharply decried the rulings against the administration by making comments suggesting Trump’s executive power is above the law, with Vice President JD Vance claiming Feb. 9 that “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.” While those comments have raised alarm among legal experts, there is so far no evidence of the Trump administration purposely defying any court orders, and the government has emphasized in court filings it is following orders even that it disagrees with.