I think they are trying to make the point that the specific ruling was that the state apportionment itself was fine, but that "The Court also ruled that political gerrymandering claims were properly justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause, noting that judicially manageable standards could be discerned and applied in such cases."

So I think they (not a legal scholar by any means) are saying that if the case is about gerrymandering specifically then they would be able to do something about it.