My second win in the US Supreme Court came in 1983, in a ruling that the election laws of ten states violated the Constitution by seeking to prevent John Anderson from running for President as an independent. Anderson ran in an election that was over three years before, in 1980. But the Court decided the case anyway because this is a "repetitious issue." It was sure to come up again, and therefore they kept the case and decided it.
Exactly the same logic applies here. There will be other requests -- there have already been two in Hawaii -- for state courts to change their election laws in the middle of an election. It would be very valuable for the Supreme Court to tell all who bring such cases, and all state supreme courts which receive such cases, that judges who attempt to rewrite their state's election laws are wrong.
A decision by the US SC states clearly that the NJ SC violated the US Constitution will be very valuable to American elections for the indefinite future. That is true regardless of who wins on the ballot in New Jersey, and regardless of whether the US SC needs to, can, or does order any specific remedy along with its Opinion.
Billybob