This ruling isn’t actually a ruling on a speech issue. Rather it’s a ruling on whether changing a policy is sufficient to moot a claim of harm under that policy

This ruling isn’t actually a ruling on a speech issue. Rather it’s a ruling on whether changing a policy is sufficient to moot a claim of harm under that policy. The majority made the common-sense ruling that simply changing a policy does not moot a claim of harm that occurred while the policy in force, which has long been the go-to argument for institutions enacting bad policy. What this ruling means is that the original suit can proceed. It says nothing about the merits of the original suit, just that the claimants actually do meet the minimum bar of standing after all.