A federal judge has suggested that Elon Musk’s role as head of the Department of Government Efficiency may be in violation of the United States Constitution’s appointments clause.

Theodore Chuang, a U.S. District Court judge in Maryland, expressed this opinion in a recent opinion, citing statements from both Musk and former President Donald Trump as evidence that Musk is, in effect, acting as the head of the department, despite being officially designated as a “special advisor to the President.”

This opinion was issued in response to a case brought by anonymous employees of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) against Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency. Judge Chuang also noted that Musk’s actions in this role, including the shutdown of USAID, which Musk had likened to throwing the agency into the “wood chipper“, are likely unconstitutional as well.

According to Chuang, “Musk has exerted actual authority at USAID that only a properly appointed Officer can exercise,” which refers to the legal distinction of an Officer of the United States as outlined in the appointments clause.

This opinion comes over 50 days after President Trump took office and allowed Musk to begin dismantling government agencies with his Department of Government Efficiency team, as seen in his efforts. It represents the most direct challenge to Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency among the numerous lawsuits filed over the past two months.

In his opinion, Judge Chuang ordered the reinstatement of certain USAID operations and prohibited Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency from taking further steps to dismantle the agency.

However, it remains uncertain whether Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency will comply with this order, as both Musk and President Trump have recently posted on social media suggesting that judges who rule against their actions should face impeachment. This stance has been met with criticism, including a rare public statement from Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts, who emphasized that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreements with judicial decisions.

As Chief Justice Roberts noted, “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.”