No, it has nothing to do with that. They simply did not rule on the merits of the law. They'll get to that later on when the case gets there.
They ruled on an emergency request to suspend the law from taking effect until it gets to them.
As a matter of fact, this is part of the news report:
The majority stressed that it was not ruling on the cons utionality of the Texas law and did not mean to limit “procedurally proper challenges” to it.
What's relatively new about this is that generally these emergency stays are granted, because they they cause irreparable harm.