Seventeen AGs are backing it, not states. Plenty of the states themselves have denounced it because the lawsuit is completely meritless. Its basically a guy from Texas going "losing the election because other states voted for the other candidate is going to affect me, so I want you to throw their results out so that my candidate can still be president". Its probably going to get dismissed the same way the Pennsylvania one got dismissed. Which is to say the Supreme Court just goes "lmao no", only in more fancy terms.

Hi, actual lawyer here: there's a doctrine in federal courts called standing. It has three main elements: (1) concrete injury in fact that is particularized to the plaintiffs, (2) that is traceable to the alleged misconduct, and (3) that is redressable by judicial remedy.

The lawsuit your talking about likely fails all three: the alleged injury (losing the electoral college due to other states' alleged but unsubstantiated misconduct) is not particularized to the plaintiffs, as courts have defined it, but is instead generally felt by everyone; the injury is not traceable to the alleged wrong insofar as it is impossible to say whether the alleged changes in election procedures would've actually changed the outcome of the election (i.e., if people couldn't vote by mail, it doesn't mean they would've simply not voted); and there is no judicial remedy available that would fix the injury (even if the 5 states were enjoined from sending their electoral college delegations, it would just got to the House of Representatives--it would not make Trump the winner).

So wait if you will, but AGs are generally elected and are thus prone to same performative exercises as any politician if they think their voters want it--here, filing futile lawsuits.