Just 'caught' a nice catfish for dinner, so I'm in a good mood, too. (He actually caught himself by swimming into our small bait-fish trap under our dock. Usually get 1" size.) Got to go cook our dinner now. ;^)

I was thinking it might be something as simple as "we won't hear this case" - such as the NRA one they declined arguing that it was moot because New York changed their policies. Deciding not to hear a case is just as effective at establishing precedent in many cases due to the overwhelmingly partisan nature of many of the Federal Appellate Courts.

its obvious that some of the scotus judges are compromised. It is also obvious that at least half are leftist activists. Why would supposedly conservative appointee's not vote to uphold the constitution? To cover their asses or to cover the asses of those holding their note (or their dirt).
Sure it aligns with what they need to prevent someone getting wind of what the SCOTUS judges or their lien holders have been doing (and they no doubt have been doing), so why would they allow for easier, more spontaneous, and legal access? Having to get a warrant by a judge gives those concerned fair warning, or the ability to quash things, in advance of execution/seizure/apprehension.
In this instance, considering previous decisions, I think it was unanimous because it favors them to do so.

They are either Constitutions centric or they are not. History says not, particularly more so recently. Unanimous? Of course, even the leftists can agree to cover their own asses, even if we benefit.

Apologies I'm very cynical these days.