Was a case heard and decided prior to that occurring?
Did Congress, during the certification of the E.C. votes, seek clarification on this issue? Or even raise the issue?
Of course not. In other words, he had no "legal" reason not to administer the oath. Now, some would argue that he should have recused himself on moral grounds that he knew there were "questions" out there.
It's been said that to date, no case was "ripe" and that the cases not taken up prior to Jan 20th either had the wrong plaintiff(s) or the wrong defendant(s) or both. For example, as we've since learned, the SoS's job doesn't include "vetting" the candidates. I would argue, as I'm sure many other would, that it should be their job. However, as of now, it's not. If I'm not mistaken, both Leo and Cort (who seemed to have pretty good arguments re: Roger Calero...the convicted felon green card holder being on some POTUS ballots), both sued their respective SoS. Wrong defendants. Therefore, won't get heard by SCOTUS.
Berg is closest IMO to getting the defendants correct...BO, DNC, Dean, Nanzi, etc. They are the parties that have conspired to defraud the American People.