1. The law stands. They're in violation of it. And while one tentacle of government says they can't be sued over violating it, nonetheless they seem to be making a bona fide effort to abide by it.
Note that if somebody founds legal grounds for a case, by really pushing their people to try to abide by the law they are establishing a bona fide effort to comply. And courts tend to view that with respect. (I mean, imagine a law that says in2herbs must provide all financial documents for his/her/... family by 2/1. You comply! And then in 1/31 you remember that that Bob's Storage unit in the town you lived in 6 years ago and which has auto-billed you monthly for some pittance has boxes of such documents, but it's 10 pm and you can't skip work and you can't get a ticket and oh crap you can't comply and it can only be intentional. No, wait. That last bit. "It can only be intentional." That doesn't fit.
They knew where all the files were, but lots of jurisdictions were working on the Epstein case(s) over 20 years. I know that in the late '80s I was working for a church and a few quibbles came up about church doctrine or preaching in the '30s and '40s and into the '70s. Except all the records were lost. And in some cases, no recording was ever made. Oops.
Me? I like original documents. I revel in archives. Obscure crap. I rummaged. And found crap going back to the '30s and '40s. The recordings were made. But nobody had looked in those boxes for decades. Nobody lied; they were just wrong.
Note that the political atmosphere that was souring under Reagan, increased its fermentation under Obama and soared in pOH under Trump I rejects the idea of "bona fide" among those we already know are bad but just need to find the reason for the judgment. What evs.
2. The law has no enforcement mechanism, no way for anybody--they claim--to have standing to bring a lawsuit.
Nobody said that the courts can't hear the case. They did say that nobody has standing to bring a case so there can't be a case for SCOTUS to hear (said by implication only). So, yes, in a sense even SCOTUS can't hear the case, just as SCOTUS can't hear the wonderful violin concerto that I didn't write.
= new reply since forum marked as read