That was a different case from the one referenced in this article. In this case, there were no full dissents. The Court may have ruled against Trump in his case, but this case here is still useful to help us stop this sort of election meddling in the future. Local Dem officials changed the election laws unilaterally to help their side, and the Court said that’s illegal. That is a good precedent, even if it came too late to help us this time.
There were NOT two separate cases.
If I'm wrong, please post a link to the decision with no dissents (hint: there isn't one).