This is good news, and the interpretation of this was taken out of context.

Barrett & Kavanaugh essentially argued that the decision to approve the application could serve to be misused and force the court to take on cases it would otherwise not be involved in.

The 'emergency hearing' is not similar to that of a normal SC case, as they describe it lacks full briefing and opportunities for oral arguments.

They do not infer that religious mandates are constitutional.

This does not impact any States that have prescribed methods of pursuing a religious exemption, nor does it provide merit to revoke such methods.

It doesn't even really address the real subject in that which is surrounds the reason for the denial, which was given to their discretionary approval.

The case itself should be read, which includes seeking relief that would come from the acknowledgement that 1) Maine is violating federal and statutory rights by not allow religious exemptions and 2) Several healthcare providers are breaking the law in enforcing this...

Does that sound like 'relief' that they can grant from something without a full briefing? Without oral arguments?

To imply a scope that would include every state that doesn't have religious exemptions and vindicate healthcare providers?

Bigger cases to come than this one.

This is good news, and the interpretation of this was taken out of context.