A lot of people who don't follow the courts make the mistake that whatever ruling the USSC makes must necessarily be the final one on the entire case, without considering that the USSC often rules on specific issues related to the case.
That's not SCOTUS's job and that's not what they do (usually). It doesn't carry the voice of the people and has no mandate to do what the people want. Its job is to decide whether our system of laws as constructed by Congress (which is the voice of the people) and as bounded by the Constitution ultimately allows A or B to prevail. In no way should a ruling in favor of A be construed as an endorsement of A's action.
See Antonin Scalia's strongly worded thoughts about the Texas v Johnson flag-burning case, in which he voted contrary to his personal convictions about the morality of Johnson's actions. Because, ultimately, he knew his vote was not a moral judgment but a legal one.
This case is a classic "nothing to see here" moment being paraded as if the sky is falling.
I get it though, I sometimes have to read a ruling five times just to figure out what the hell has been decided.
The cases where SCOTUS attracts the most attention are the ones where fairly broad decisions are made, or at least hinted at.
The public is usually wrong in their understanding of it -- as non-experts practically always are. Nonetheless, SCOTUS does make, several times a year, decisions that have a direct bearing on people's lives. They may not understand the nuances of the decision but they know when their rights have expanded or collapsed.
Such decisions are usually issued at the end of June. Expect there to be several significant and not-at-all-narrow decisions very soon.
Here, the court is saying that Jack Daniels gets to make its case to a jury.