Not a lawyer or a legal expert.
Here are some things I think are true.
Higher courts have a responsibility to defer to lower courts unless there is good reason. Otherwise those appearing before the lower courts will assume that they always have justification to appeal.
Writs of Mandamus are MANDATES (ORDERS) from the court to a party to DO a certain thing. These are rare because typically lower courts defer to the higher courts. Usually there is time for the higher and lower courts to work out any differences, usually in favor of what the higher court says.
The linked article mentions an "alternative writ of mandamus". I haven't read prior articles on this matter but I believe the higher court must have GRANTED the state's request for a writ and then, after further consideration, decided that the writ was not yet justified. The article doesn't say so but evidently the "alternative writ" must have invalidated their original writ. (Or is it possible that "alternative" means that the higher court DID NOT grant the writ requested but issued a different one? If anybody knows, please speak up.)
As I pointed out, writs of mandamus are rare. Oddly we have witnessed one in just the last few days. The DOJ motioned to drop charges against Flynn. When the judge didn't quickly do that, Flynn's lawyer filed for a writ of mandamus from the DC Court of Appeals to order the charges dropped. The DC Court of Appeals didn't immediately grant the writ requested but did order the lower court judge to explain himself within ten days. Evidently the cost to Flynn of having charges hanging over him for an additional ten days did not justify an immediate order to the lower court to drop the charges. It will be interesting to hear the lower court judge explain himself and what the Appeals Court does about it.
I’m thinking that this is likely similar to what we saw in the Flynn case. I imagine the “Alterate Writ” is perhaps incorrect nomenclature - IANAL - so take it all with a large grain of salt.
What we saw in Flynn was the Appellate court demanding justification from Sullivan. This isn’t the Writ of Mandamus itself, but rather a part of the upper court decision making process. They are developing a record on the issue by getting responses from the court in question.
If the justification doesn’t hold water - then the upper court issues the actual “Writ of Mandamus.”
Again - IANAL - but this seems to be similar and a likely explanation.