Going only from your quote, no, the point is that if they’re not challenging all the applicable laws, then arguing the case would be a waste of time. Even if they had an airtight case, the judge would be unable to grant relief.
I haven’t read the article, so there might be more context that changes it. But from my limited understanding, that’s how it works.
“If a federal court were to hold that law unconstitutional, would that provide any relief at all to the Satanic Temple?" [Judge] Easterbrook said.
[TST attorney] Mac Naughton replied: “It would be able to provide abortifacients to its members in Indiana.”
Easterbrook responded, "No, they would not. There are other statutes on the books in Indiana requiring these drugs to be approved personally by a physician after at least one in-person visit.”
…
The judges tried to clarify how blocking the challenged law would provide any benefit, as other laws would still prevent abortion care via telemedicine.
“You are not saying anything relevant, that’s my problem,” Easterbrook said. “I’ll let you go on, but you have to understand that unless you can answer the question as I pose it, you have no hope.”
Going only from your quote, no, the point is that if they’re not challenging all the applicable laws, then arguing the case would be a waste of time. Even if they had an airtight case, the judge would be unable to grant relief.
I haven’t read the article, so there might be more context that changes it. But from my limited understanding, that’s how it works.