President Donald Trump, billionaire Elon Musk and their allies have ramped up calls this week for judges to be impeached over unfavorable rulings against the White House—particularly targeting Judge James Boasberg after he blocked a sweeping immigration order—but federal rules and Republicans’ narrow majority in Congress mean any impeachment efforts are likely to fail.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts made a rare public statement rebuking Trump’s call for Boasberg’s impeachment, saying Tuesday, “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,” the chief justice continued.

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.

While a few Trump allies have so far been vocal about wanting to impeach judges issuing unfavorable rulings, it remains to be seen whether the GOP-controlled House would take up the issue. House leaders have suggested they could be open to moving forward with impeachment, with a spokesperson for House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., decrying judges “with political agendas” and telling Politico the speaker “looks forward to working with the Judiciary Committee as they review all available options under the Constitution to address this urgent matter.” Politico reports Republican lawmakers are privately hesitant about moving forward with impeachment, however, both disagreeing with the push to punish judges for unfavorable rulings and believing there isn’t enough political appetite for the issue. GOP leadership and some House Republicans are “‘rolling their eyes’ at the impeachment filings that ‘aren’t going to go anywhere,’” one unnamed House staffer told Politico. The Hill notes Republican senators have also so far not been particularly eager to take up judicial impeachments or believed they’re necessary, with Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., previously saying courts have a “valid role and need to be listened to.” It remains to be seen whether Trump’s advocacy for impeaching Boasberg will persuade more Republicans to sign on to any impeachment efforts, however.

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 James Boasberg: Boasberg serves as the chief judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, ascending to that role in 2023 after President Barack Obama initially appointed him to the bench in 2011. Boasberg ruled Saturday to temporarily halt any deportations carried out under Trump’s executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act while litigation challenging Trump’s policy played out, though that dispute has now escalated into an issue over whether the Trump administration defied his order by deporting migrants under the policy anyway. Boasberg reportedly raised his voice at the Trump administration during a hearing Monday and chastised the government for not canceling deportations that were in process when he issued his ruling, characterizing the White House’s approach as, “We don’t care; we’ll do what we want.” As a judge on one of the most prominent lower courts handling political disputes, Boasberg has also overseen other issues involving Trump, such as handling grand jury issues that arose when the Biden-era DOJ was investigating Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

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 ruled Tuesday to block the transgender military ban, prompting Republicans to denounce her. “We either have a presidency or we have a rule by 677 gavel-wielding dictators,” right-wing commentator Charlie Kirk said on X, which Musk shared, adding, “We need 60 senators to impeach the judges and restore rule of the people.” (Musk’s comments misstate the actual process for impeachment, which is done in the House; removal in the Senate requires 67 votes.)

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 gone through the full appeals process to result in any final, lasting rulings. Boasberg’s ruling has become a particular flashpoint, as the judge blocked the Trump administration from deporting any migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, only for Secretary of State Marco Rubio to announce hours after Boasberg’s ruling that more than 250 people covered by Trump’s order were deported to El Salvador. The Trump administration has denied any wrongdoing, claiming flights departed before Boasberg’s order and the judge could not control them once they were outside of U.S. airspace, but Boasberg has expressed skepticism of that argument. The incident has escalated fears among Trump critics about the Trump administration potentially violating court orders, though the Trump administration has so far not suggested it has intentionally defied any rulings.