I think this is an extraordinary notice by the Justices to the EPA that they better revise their actions immediately since SCOTUS is very clear with this, that if the case comes to the Court later the EPA won't like the outcome. 'With prejudice' ...
Yes, because this is their third Strike. First there was SWANCC v. Army Corp of Engineers where the EPA's migratory waterfowl definition was upended.
Second there was Rapanos v. Army Corp where they were slapped by Scalia about the "waters of the United States"
Now in this case, they attempt an end around the federal courts with their rule making. It is not wise to argue that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction, or the defendants in a federal action do not have standing .
Three strikes and you're out.