Which law professors wrote op-eds defending Trump's post-2020 election lawsuits as valid legal advocacy?

1. What the available reporting emphasizes: law professors were largely critical

Contemporaneous and later reporting in these sources foregrounds law professors who argued the post-2020 suits lacked proof or were harmful: Justin Levitt, an election-law professor, called the lawsuits “dangerous” (AP News) ^[1]; UC‑Irvine’s Rick Hasen repeatedly said there was “no evidence of fraud … that could conceivably affect the election results” and explained why many suits failed ^[2]; Harvard’s Nicholas Stephanopoulos described many filings as weak, noting dismissals by both Democratic and Republican judges ^[3]. Multiple fact‑checks and legal summaries likewise conclude the suits mostly failed on merits or procedure ^{[4] [5]}.

2. Do the sources identify law‑professors who defended the suits as legitimate legal advocacy?

The set of documents you provided does not name law professors who defended the post‑2020 Trump lawsuits as valid legal advocacy. Instead, the sources either report criticism from academics (Levitt, Hasen, Pildes, Stephanopoulos) or summarize case outcomes and expert consensus that the challenges were unsuccessful or unproven ^{[1] [2] [4] [3]}. Available sources do not mention specific law professors publicly endorsing those post‑2020 suits as proper, ethical legal advocacy.

3. Where defenders of the litigation are visible in the record (campaign lawyers vs. academics)

The record in these sources distinguishes between partisan advocates (Trump’s lawyers and allied attorneys) and neutral academic observers. Many of the lawyers who brought or amplified the suits (e.g., Giuliani, Powell, others later sanctioned) are reported and criticized in the press; several were sanctioned by judges for filings courts found meritless ^[6]. But that reporting frames those litigators as partisan counsel, not as law‑school faculty defending the suits’ professional legitimacy ^{[6] [1]}.

4. Explanations academics gave for why suits failed — helps evaluate claims of “valid advocacy”

When law professors are quoted, their critiques focus on lack of evidence, procedural defects, and legal standards that constrain post‑election remedies. Rick Hasen stressed the absence of evidence that could affect the outcome ^[2]; Richard Pildes and other scholars noted courts operate by law and many claims lacked proof ^[4]. Nicholas Stephanopoulos pointed to the speed and bipartisan nature of the dismissals as evidence the cases were weak ^[3]. Those explanations undercut a claim that the litigation was broadly defensible as standard, non‑abusive legal advocacy in the eyes of the academic community ^{[2] [3]}.

5. Alternative viewpoints and limits of the available reporting

Some sources (e.g., Brookings analysis) note nuance: while the legal campaign failed overall, scholars like Richard Hasen observed that courtroom advocacy can carry an “aura of respectability” and that some procedural or narrowly framed rulings favored plaintiffs in isolated instances — suggesting a more complex picture than “total failure” ^[7]. That perspective acknowledges how litigation strategy and presentation can matter even when most claims are rejected. However, the documents supplied do not show law‑professors publicly arguing the post‑2020 suits were principled, ethically sound legal advocacy in general ^[7].

6. Bottom line and what remains unreported here

Based on the sources provided, the prevalent academic voice in the record criticized the post‑2020 lawsuits rather than defended them; names repeatedly cited include Justin Levitt, Rick Hasen, Richard Pildes, and Nicholas Stephanopoulos ^{[1] [2] [4] [3]}. If you are seeking a list of law professors who wrote op‑eds explicitly defending those lawsuits as valid legal advocacy, available sources do not mention such op‑eds or identify such professors. Further reporting beyond these documents would be necessary to find any academic op‑eds that took that supporting position.