[Dr. Franklin]

No court has jurisdiction over the matter of a seated federal officer.
No court.

There is nothing like making a broad, sweeping assertion that is wrong. By statute, jurisdiction for a writ of quo warranto is with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. (See below.) However, if a state is a party, the U.S. Constitution (Article III, Sec. 2), grants that state the right to file for that writ in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Code of the District of Columbia
Actions Against Officers of the United States.
§ 16–3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.
A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

[Mariner]

A seated federal officer has never been so sued because congress has plenary power over all federal officers.

[Mariner]

I apologize for arguing minutia while not paying attention.

My original statement to which you took umbrage was:

No court has jurisdiction over the matter of a seated federal officer.
No court.

And that statement was referring to whether the courts had authority to remove a seated (congressionally certified) federal officer.

They do not, the code of the District of Columbia not withstanding.

I stick by that statement.

Of course the courts have ruled innumerable times that the actions taken by federal officers were illegal under statute or constitution. And to date those officers have respected those rulings for the most part. The famous exception being Andrew Jackson.

That said, the feds have used quo warranto as a tool to remove seated state officers under the 14th Amendment.