The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Trump administration can end Temporary Protected Status designations for immigrants. Judge Allison Burroughs — an Obama appointee — read that ruling and apparently decided it didn't apply to her.

So Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee filed articles of impeachment against her.

Burroughs issued what she called an "administrative stay" last Friday, blocking the termination of TPS for Somali nationals. The order effectively declared the termination "void" — temporarily, she claimed — despite the Supreme Court having already addressed the exact question of whether lower courts can suspend TPS decisions. The answer was no. Burroughs said yes anyway.

Ogles didn't mince words. "I have just introduced articles of impeachment against radical judicial activist Judge Allison Burroughs for ignoring the Supreme Court and attempting to force mass migration from Somalia into American communities," the Tennessee Republican announced, as reported by The Blaze.

The numbers here aren't enormous. There are roughly 100,000 Somalis living in the United States, with an estimated 5,000 eligible for TPS. This isn't about a massive population. It's about whether a single district court judge gets to override both the executive branch and the highest court in the country because she doesn't like the policy.

DHS general counsel James Percival laid it out flat: "Judge Allison Burroughs just entered yet another order preventing the termination of Somalia TPS. There is no serious debate about what is going on in these cases — defiance, obstruction, and delay."

That phrase — "yet another order" — matters. This isn't a one-time disagreement over a novel legal question. It's a pattern. Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan piled on, noting that four of the five claims in the case were "straight up foreclosed by the Supreme Court" and the fifth was "frivolous."

So five legal arguments. Four already rejected by SCOTUS. One not even serious. And Burroughs still blocked the deportations.

The left-wing legal establishment will frame this as a threat to judicial independence. Which is an interesting way to describe a judge who received a direct instruction from the Supreme Court and chose to ignore it. Judicial independence means interpreting the law without political pressure. It doesn't mean pretending a 6-3 Supreme Court ruling doesn't exist because you were appointed by the guy who created the TPS designation in the first place.

Ogles' spokesman connected the dots: "SCOTUS made it very clear that lower courts cannot suspend TPS. Yet, an Obama appointed judge is defying the Court and the Constitution in an attempt to subvert the will of the President. This judicial activist's obstruction of the people's will must be stopped."

Now, will Burroughs actually be removed? History says probably not. Only eight federal judges have been convicted and removed in the entire history of the United States. You need a House majority to approve, then two-thirds of the Senate to convict. Those are steep odds.

But that's not really the point. The point is that for years, Republicans have watched Obama and Biden judges issue nationwide injunctions, block executive orders, and effectively run immigration policy from the bench — and the standard Republican response has been a sternly worded press release. Ogles skipped the press release and went straight to the Constitution's actual remedy for judicial overreach.

Article III gives federal judges lifetime appointments. Article I gives Congress the power to take them away. One of those tools has been collecting dust for about two centuries.

Ogles just picked it up.