How I think Trump's actions may be defeated in court
I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me there might be a strategy for defeating any of Trump's actions in court based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment which holds that sworn officers of the government cannot hold office if they engaged in an insurrection. Let's say, for example, you are a Haitian immigrant and Trump has declared by executive order that you be deported. Can't you claim in court that Trump's presidency is unconstitutional because it violates Section 3 so any of his actions is in violation of the Constitution? Is not the constitutionality of his office just as suspect, even more so, than Jack Smith's, which was the basis for Judge Cannon's dismissal of the documents case?
Cannon's dismissal is, of course, on shaky ground because it is based on Justice Thomas's lone and faulty interpretation of the Appointments Clause in the Constitution. It is currently under appeal but what's interesting about it is it is based on the constitutionality of the prosecutor's office, not the actual facts or law of the charges themselves. There is a stronger argument that the courts can invalidate any of Trump's actions for the same lack of office constitutionality.
In the Colorado case, Trump v Anderson, a (scandal-ridden) majority of the court held that Section 3 could not be enforced except by Congressional statute because Section 5 states, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." There are a number of problems with that decision but even with that in force, there should be nothing stopping a litigant from claiming that any of Trump's actions are invalid because he is not supposed to be holding federal office under Section 3. The SC said only Congress can enforce the 14th Amendment but said nothing about the courts using the 14th Amendment to invalidate government action, as that has occurred in thousands of cases, especially in regard to the Equal Protection Clause.
Furthermore, this represents no undue burden on Trump because Section 3 kindly offers a remedy: "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." Wouldn't it be interesting to have that vote?
= new reply since forum marked as read
That hasn't been the case in recent filings, since the Constitution was clear that an insurrectionist was unqualified to even run for public office and voters had no scruples in voting for a convicted felon and a candidate determined to be guilty of sexual assault for the highest office in the land. 
