But what is your alternate explanation of how this particular group of Attorneys General happen to have been the ones to sue? In their ruling, the (Republican) judges clearly stated that they saw no other cogent motivation. I'm not aware of any other proposed explanation from any quarters. So, seriously, what do you think it might have been instead?

For instance, in the transcript, check out the part where (Trump-appointee) Judge Newsom wonders "And you've got the Pennsylvania Republicans on your side and the attorneys general -- overwhelmingly Republican attorneys general on your side. I'm just trying to figure out kind of what to make of any of that." What do you think of the (non-)reply? If you could give your own reply to cast things in the best possible light, what would you say?

By the way, the transcripts also show that Judge Newsom (and the others) fully grasped that the choice isn't between "Beautiful, Pure, Unperturbed Data vs. Noisy Data" but rather between "Data that has been fuzzed via a Swapping technique that the Census Bureau had been using for decades but is now known to be unsuitable going forward, vs. Data that's fuzzed using Differential Privacy."