…. first I'll give the cynical (and very short) answer to that. Oslon and Boies are highly competent attorneys with abilities that normally command huge salaries/fees. They are foregoing a lot of business by taking on this case. Ending it quickly is in their self-interest. (Note to Olson and Boies: please take this as a purposely outrageous, backhanded compliment .)

Now the pragmatic answer: risk mitigation. In spite of the facts, there is a risk that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the defense due to its conservative bias (the result of appointments by Republican presidents), and many decisions are very close – 5-4 or 4-5. It's safer to get a limited win by showing that the defense has no right to appeal given that the actual defendant (the state government of California) accepts Judge Walker's ruling. While limited in the sense that no nationwide-precedent would be set, Judge Walker's ruling will have nationwide influence as other jurists make use of it based on its merits, the result of Judge Walker and those on our side doing a wonderful job during the trial.