Legal experts agree: Donald Trump has numerous legal arguments at his disposal to fight back against states removing him from the presidential ballot.

Last month, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Trump is disqualified for the presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Then last week, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) — who is neither a lawyer nor directly elected by the people of Maine — made the same determination. Trump has appealed Bellows' decision but has yet to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review Colorado's.

On "Good Morning America," ABC News chief legal analyst Dan Abrams explained why Trump holds a significant advantage once the issue reaches the Supreme Court.

"The advantage that the Donald Trump team has is that if [the Supreme Court justices] accept any one of the arguments, he wins," Abrams said.

According to Abrams, Trump has five legal arguments at his disposal.

"You have a due process argument, you have definitional arguments, you have questions about whether it's self-executing or whether you need Congress to make laws," he said, explaining it is also a question of whether the 14th Amendment applies to the office of the president.

"There are real legal arguments that Donald Trump has. And because there's a menu of outs for the court, they're going to find one, I would think, that will say Donald Trump can remain on the ballot," Abrams predicted.

Meanwhile, CNN legal analyst Elie Honig broke down the "four or five different ways" that Trump can win by laying out the arguments contained within his appeal in Maine.

Honig, a former federal prosecutor, explained on Wednesday:

1. "He says, 'Well, I did not engage in insurrection.' It's just one line, but I think he feels duty-bound to deny it."
2. "He says, 'It's up to Congress, not the states, to tell us how the 14th Amendment works. Congress has not done that, other than passing the criminal law. Hence, the states are out of business.'"
3. "He says, 'Well, even if it is up to the states, Maine did not follow its own procedures. The secretary of state was biased against me, etc.'"
4. "He goes on to say, 'Well, even if they did properly follow their own procedures, that didn't give me enough due process. They had this one-day hearing. There was only one witness. It was a law professor. It doesn't comport even with minimum due process protections.'"
5. "He says, 'Even if all those other arguments fail, the president does not qualify as an officer of the United States under the Constitution.'"

The strongest arguments, Honig went on to say, are No. 2 and No. 5.

Honig, moreover, predicted the Supreme Court will intervene and review Colorado's decision to find a "way to make one ruling and say, 'That's the end of this nationwide.'"

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!