Which legal scholars have publicly defended Trump's post-election litigation as legitimate legal process?

1. What the assembled reporting actually covers — litigation volume and trackers

Much of the reporting in the provided set is descriptive: organizations and outlets are cataloguing the surge of suits involving the Trump administration and tracking court actions, not cataloguing endorsements from academic legal scholars. For example, Just Security and Lawfare maintain litigation trackers that summarize filings, rulings, and appeals against or by the administration ^{[1] [2]}. The Associated Press similarly runs a projects tracker listing hundreds of suits filed since the administration began ^[3]. Those trackers are tools for following cases; they do not, in these excerpts, record a roster of scholars defending the post‑election litigation as legitimate ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. Where analysis is present — concerns about using litigation as political strategy

Independent commentary in the packet addresses broader consequences of litigation tactics. The Fulcrum summarized academic concerns that lawsuits challenging voting rules can exacerbate public distrust and deepen partisan divides, citing law review and journal pieces arguing litigation used as political strategy can discourage participation and stall reforms ^[4]. That signals an intellectual current skeptical of aggressive post‑election litigation, but it is not a record of scholars defending that litigation as purely legitimate legal process ^[4].

3. Coverage of election‑related criminal and state prosecutions, not scholarly defenses

The included reporting on high‑profile criminal matters focuses on prosecutions and procedural developments — for example, the Georgia racketeering indictment and changes in prosecution personnel — again without cataloging which law professors or legal scholars publicly framed post‑election suits as legitimate legal process ^{[5] [6]}. PBS and Time explain prosecutorial context and legal hurdles; they quote law professors making predictive or procedural observations rather than mounting normative defenses of the litigation strategy as inherently legitimate ^{[5] [6]}.

4. What you should infer — absence of named scholar defenders in these sources

Because the packet’s items either (a) compile litigation records ^{[1] [2] [3]}, (b) analyze the civic consequences of litigation strategies ^[4], or (c) report on criminal case developments ^{[5] [6]}, they do not provide evidence that particular legal scholars publicly defended Trump’s post‑election litigation as legitimate legal process. Therefore, available sources do not mention specific scholars who made such public defenses — the sources simply do not include that material ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}.

5. Competing perspectives present in the packet

The packet contains competing emphases: tracker and court‑reporting outlets present the existence and outcomes of litigation without taking normative positions ^{[1] [2] [3]}, while commentary outlets and law journals cited by The Fulcrum warn that litigation may erode public trust and deepen partisan division ^[4]. The trackers let readers evaluate whether suits comport with legal norms by following filings and rulings; critical commentary highlights political and civic costs when litigation is used as a strategy ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.

6. How to proceed if you need a definitive list of scholar defenders

To answer your original question — which legal scholars publicly defended Trump’s post‑election litigation as legitimate legal process — you will need primary reporting or public statements that name individuals. Those are not present in the sources you provided. I recommend searching academic op‑eds, law‑school press releases, public letters, or media interviews dated around the post‑election period; litigation trackers and court coverage ^{[1] [2] [3]} can confirm whether the legal arguments those scholars praised were raised in particular filings. If you supply additional articles or statements that claim specific scholars made such defenses, I will analyze and cite them directly.