It points out that China has the executive capacity to act, in a manner that having 94 federal courts - each imposing nationwide orders - has come to hamper in the US. There's always one judge somewhere who'll disagree with a President's actions no matter who the President is and no matter what the action is, simply because there are so so many of them.

The SCOTUS noted that they may need to reign-in the scope of lower-court orders, and this just adds weight to the issue.

It's particularly important because there's a practical bias. Opponents of an executive action can district-shop, while it is difficult for the Executive to file a declaratory-judgment action in a (perceived to be) favorable jurisdiction. So we end up with nation-wide judgments which differ what what the other districts would have ruled... but the other districts never had an opportunity to rule. Then... since a ruling has been issued, they are largely blocked from ever ruling.

However, the SCOTUS is is a bit of a bind, because allowing nation-wide orders works very effectively in general civil / criminal litigation. The problem has seemed to arise mostly in politically-charged issues where the government is a party.