In it, but not of it. TPM DC
Coleman has contended that Al Franken illegitimately gained over 100 votes because of this process. But his campaign's prior role in creating Rule 9 means they are potentially stuck under the doctrine of invited error -- that is, you can't reverse your position just because it hasn't worked out well for you.
As such, they need the rule to be declared wholly illegal -- that its consequences are an affront to the voters, not just Coleman -- in an attempt to absolve themselves from their commitment. The Coleman camp made a prior motion to nullify an agreement on the grounds that it wasn't legal in the first place -- and the court ruled against them. So if the court again rules that they made a legal deal and they're stuck with it, this will be another issue for appeals.
Also, Langdon is filing a motion asking the court reconsider a previous ruling against Coleman, who wanted them to order the inspection of ballots from around the state. Here's the thing: That ruling was in January, as the trial was just beginning. This isn't exactly the most timely appeal.
So the Coleman camp has come down with a bunch of big legal arguments, and done them at the last minute. Does this mean they aren't actually resting? Not really. What they're doing here is laying down a basis for appeal, after the judges eventually give an expected ruling that Al Franken is the winner of this photo-finish.