The fact that Texas sued the election process of the four battlefield states is considered "unreasonable" and difficult to help Trump turn the situation in the Supreme Court.

Texas on December 7 filed a lawsuit against four battlefield states, including Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, to the Supreme Court to prevent the electoral delegation from confirming the victory of Democratic candidate Joe Biden.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, accused the new voting process in the four battlefield states of falsifying presidential election results and asked the Supreme Court to postpone the deadline for confirmation by the electoral college.

17 states filed in support of the Texas lawsuit.

However, many legal experts believe that the Texas lawsuit, with the support of 17 other states, is almost legally invalid, calling the allegation "unreasonable" and "

In the US federal system, Texas has no legal status to question how other states handle their electoral process, said Rebecca Green, a professor at the William & Mary School of Law in Virginia.

"That was weird. It's the complete opposite of how the Constitution regulates how elections are conducted," she said.

The Texas lawsuit is the latest in a legal campaign effort by Trump and his supporters to reverse the results of the election.

Texas asked the Supreme Court to issue a decision blocking the above 4 states using the popular election results to select electors to elect the president.

Usually, when the states sue to the Supreme Court, the person who filed the lawsuit is the Chief Counsel, the legal counsel representing the state government at the Supreme Court.

It is unclear why Hawkins did not sign the application, but according to Justin Levitt, professor of electoral law at Loyola Law School in California, "it is likely that he does not want to include his name in a legal suit that is not different.

Attorney General Paxton files a lawsuit directly with the Supreme Court instead of a lower court, which is permissible for some interstate litigation.

The US Supreme Court currently has a conservative majority, with a 6-3 ratio, of which three judges are appointed by President Trump.

"My point is that the judges will be extremely cautious in opening this 'trouble box'," he said.

In practice, the Supreme Court generally refuses to settle interstate disputes in the event that they can be resolved in lower courts involving the parties.

Adler speculates Paxton could advance the lawsuit in hopes of getting a presidential pardon from Trump.

"Obviously one way for you to get pardon is to stand with the President, protect him," Adler said.

Legal experts were also quick to point out that Texas seemed to be so hastily prepared that the lawsuit had made fundamental mistakes.

But in fact, these four states only have a total of 62 electoral votes, according to Lyle Denniston, a veteran correspondent on the US Supreme Court.

According to Josh Blackman, professor at the University of South Texas Law School, even when Paxton made valid arguments, his requests to judges were still impractical.

"Asking the court to remove so many votes is unthinkable," Blackman stressed.

"The claims and demands they made are ridiculous. It is a ridiculous lawsuit," said Joshua Douglas, professor of electoral law at the University of Kentucky.

According to Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas Law School, the state filed a lawsuit based on an obscure Supreme Court's ability to immediately adjudicate interstate disputes without prior notice.

But the argument that Attorney General Paxton raised in the lawsuit has nothing to do with interstate relations, nor to electoral fraud.

On the other hand, like many other lawsuits filed by Trump's campaign so far, the Texas lawsuit "lacked factual evidence, was deeply skeptical, showed a lack of respect for the role.

"If the Supreme Court eventually refuses to accept the lawsuit filed by Texas, President Trump's legal effort will end in a catastrophic end," said commentator Damon Root of Reason page.