They've had plenty of opportunity to do this and haven't, so would find it incredibly unlikely they would magically start to have a problem now

Not to mention doing would basically kill game as one of the biggest reason people even still play Minecraft is the modding scene, not the minimum viable effort that have been the official updates for last number of years.

Wouldn’t the structure of the code be be more copyrightable than the names?

I’ll preface this by saying I’m not a lawyer, but let’s say Microsoft released an obfuscated version where the method FooBar is called FakeName instead. If I use FakeName in my mod, aren’t I hypothetically at risk of the same thing? How does the actual name matter for this argument?

Or is the argument that only source code is copyrighted, but not binaries so it only matters if the name matches the original source code? That doesn’t seem possible because it’s copyright infringement to share a retail game binary, so they’re clearly copyrighted as well.

So I’m really unclear how the risk here is any different regardless of obfuscation since the mod needs to use method names from the copyrighted binary either way.

I was initially a little confused at your comment. I had thought the decision was against Oracle being able to sue for use of the Java API.

Reading a little closer, the decision was that even assuming the API copyright claim was valid, Google's use of the API was fair use.

> In April 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–2 decision that Google's use of the Java APIs served an organizing function and fell within the four factors of fair use, bypassing the question on the copyrightability of the APIs. The decision reversed the Federal Circuit ruling and remanded the case for further review.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_....