I’m sorry to say this, but the Congress meeting in official setting is in fact a court. When the Congress allowed the fraudulent bastard boy to be elected by the electoral votes cast, even though he was not Constitutionally eligible, that is a court decision making him legitimate from their ruling. BUT solely from their ruling, not Constitutionally.
The requirements of the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three occur AFTER Congress has accepted the results of the electoral college. When Congress accepts the results, all they have really done is identify who the "President Elect" happens to be. After this time and before the taking of the oath of office, this person named as the "President Elect" must provide proof of eligibility to Congress in order to legally serve as President. If this is not accomplished, Congress is instructed by the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three to name a replacement.
Knowing the above, there can never be a condition where there is doubt about the eligibility of a legal President. In this instance, for whatever reason, Congress has twice ignored it's duty under the Constitution in regards to the Twentieth Amendment and there is nothing but doubt. There has been a "failure to qualify" by the President Elect as required by the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three, and thus a usurpation of the office of President.