Example:

If an injunction was issued to make a civil rights law unenforceable until a hearing is ruled on, like say 2a stuff and then the state changes the law, that lawsuit is considered moot.  Before this ruling, the attorney could file for attorney's fees. Now they cannot.

Real life example:The HI taser lawsuit, It took about 5 years to go through. HI decided to change the law, thus making the lawsuit moot. Aka pointless cause the law was changed.

Current real example: Sensitive places lawsuit, there's an injunction currently in force. If at any point while we await SCOTUS to take the lawsuit or not HI changes the law, then any attorney's fees that Beck and O'Grady have accrued won't be paid.

What this means, less civil rights lawsuits because states can just change the law because lawyers will want money up front knowing that they can be doing years of work for no pay.

The ruling was based on "prevailing party" being paid, which means a lawsuit is ruled upon and over.  An injunction means that the lawsuit is still active and mooting a case means no harm due to the law being changed. So nothing worth suing over anymore.

So, states like HI will do more F-U, sue us type laws.